# News & Current Events > U.S. Political News >  Chased, shot and killed by off duty cop for "ding dong ditch"

## Anti Federalist

Not quite sure what to make of this one yet.



*In Venice shooting, a hunt for answers*

By Todd Ruger, Anthony Cormier & Kim Hackett
Staff Writers

Published: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 at 1:00 a.m.
Last Modified: Monday, April 19, 2010 at 11:31 p.m.

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article...1060?p=1&tc=pg

( page 1 of 4 )

VENICE - An autopsy on the body of Tyler Spann is complete and he will be buried today, but questions remain about the death of the 20-year-old who was shot and killed early Friday by an off-duty Sarasota County sheriff's deputy.

The Sheriff's Office did not release details about the case Monday, but officials say they expect the investigation into the actions of Deputy Carlos Verdoni, who shot Spann, to be completed by the end of this week.

The inquiry into the shooting is divided into two parts: a criminal investigation of the shooting; and an administrative look at whether Verdoni followed procedures when he left his home in shorts, a T-shirt and sandals to track down the pranksters who banged on his door and ran off.

Verdoni, 33, told his superiors that his doorbell was rung around midnight Thursday, and then he heard banging on his door around 1 a.m. He said he chased down one prankster in his squad car and found him outside a home in the 300 block of Lisbon Street. There he encountered Spann and told him to lay down while he called for backup.

Spann complied initially, Verdoni said, but then rushed up and tackled the deputy and reached for his gun. Verdoni fired two shots, killing Spann, who was unarmed.

Sheriff's officials are investigating the shooting even though it happened within the Venice city limits. The Sheriff's Office says it handles all officer-involved shootings in the county, except for those in the city of Sarasota, through an agreement with the smaller police agencies.

Sheriff Tom Knight has said that he believes Verdoni's actions were justified and that the investigation will clear the nine-year veteran.

----------


## james1906

20 years old and playing ding dong ditch?

----------


## silus

Imagine if that guy did this...YouTube - Trash Can Water Prank on Angry Neighbor

----------


## BLS

Look....if you come after MY gun, I'll kill ya.
The cop told him to stay down.  There are witnesses corroborating that.
The guy was an idiot and it cost him his life.

----------


## Eroberer

> Imagine if that guy did this...


What?  He'd end up dead?

Oh, wait.

----------


## dannno

> 20 years old and playing ding dong ditch?

----------


## Kotin

if the guy actually did tackle him and go for his gun..  it might be warranted... but I have a hard time believing he did.. and especially if that is the testimony of the officer in question.

----------


## RM918

Hell I thought they quit doing those in the 90s.

----------


## Eroberer

Was there another witness or just the cop?  If so, then you can't believe that it happened the way he says it did.

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> Imagine if that guy did this...YouTube - Trash Can Water Prank on Angry Neighbor


This strikes me as aggression in the form of biological warfare.  Not only does it have the potential to do literally thousands of dollars worth of damage, but it could spread potentially lethal disease.  I do not find this even the least remote bit funny.  In fact, I'd go so far as to question the principles of anybody who _did_ find it funny.

----------


## Fr3shjive

The kid was playing ding dong ditch, sure he's a little old to be doing that but its still very harmless. The cop car was parked in the driveway of his home so the kids probably knew they were messing with a cop. The cop probably took it personally and decided that he'll handle this himself.

Personally I think the cop should have called the police department and let them handle it rather than getting armed looking for ding dong ditchers. Seems excessive for a cop to need his firearm when he knows kids are just playing pranks on him.

----------


## squarepusher

> This strikes me as aggression in the form of biological warfare.  Not only does it have the potential to do literally thousands of dollars worth of damage, but it could spread potentially lethal disease.  I do not find this even the least remote bit funny.  In fact, I'd go so far as to question the principles of anybody who _did_ find it funny.


wut? not to mention it could have drowned any midgets or tiny animals near there

----------


## GunnyFreedom

> wut? not to mention it could have drowned any midgets or tiny animals near there


Yeah forget about salmanella thriving in warm wet environments, or the $5000+ that guy will have to spend on sanitizing and removing the smell of garbage, it's all about midgets and toy poodles.

----------


## olehounddog

> Look....if you come after MY gun, I'll kill ya.
> The cop told him to stay down.  There are witnesses corroborating that.
> The guy was an idiot and it cost him his life.


But would you and I be treated the same if we chased down and killed someone who rang our doorbell.

----------


## Fr3shjive

> Look....if you come after MY gun, I'll kill ya.
> The cop told him to stay down.  There are witnesses corroborating that.
> The guy was an idiot and it cost him his life.


The guy had no business hunting down a ding dong ditcher with his gun. If he were a civilian he would be facing criminal charges but because he's a cop he'll get off scot-free?

He should have stayed in his house, protected his family (if he really thought he was in danger) and called the proper authorities. Intead of allowing the on duty police to take care of the matter he took it into his own hands and somebody ended up dead. 

Personally this sounds like a cop getting tired of being pranked and thought he would "teach these punks a lesson", unfortunately he killed one of them.

----------


## amy31416

I never could get the hang of ring & run, I was a slow child...nothing but knock & walk for me.

Got caught every time.

----------


## TonySutton

> The cop told him to stay down.  There are witnesses corroborating that.


Do you have a link corroborating your claim of witnesses?

----------


## Fr3shjive

He's a story with a better description of what happened.

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article...king/100419789

----------


## dean.engelhardt

> The guy had no business hunting down a ding dong ditcher with his gun. If he were a civilian he would be facing criminal charges but because he's a cop he'll get off scot-free?
> 
> He should have stayed in his house, protected his family (if he really thought he was in danger) and called the proper authorities. Intead of allowing the on duty police to take care of the matter he took it into his own hands and somebody ended up dead. 
> 
> Personally this sounds like a cop getting tired of being pranked and thought he would "teach these punks a lesson", unfortunately he killed one of them.


Being abused is not part of the job.  

"The guy had no business hunting down a ding dong ditcher with his gun."

First it is his duty as a swore officer of the law.  Secondly, it is his right as a homeowner.  Very citizen has a right to bear arms.  

"He should have stayed in his house, protected his family (if he really thought he was in danger) and called the proper authorities."

Would you say the same if he had any different job?  I don't agree that staying in your home is the proper way to deal with pranksters.  Most sheriffs also have authority within the city.  He probably has the proper authority if there is an agreement between the city and county.

"Intead of allowing the on duty police to take care of the matter he took it into his own hands and somebody ended up dead."

Any person victimized has rights, even off-duty officers.  If the report is correct, the guy was going to end up dead no matter which officer arrived.  That is risk you take by attempting to kill a cop. 

"Personally this sounds like a cop getting tired of being pranked and thought he would "teach these punks a lesson", unfortunately he killed one of them."
 If you are right then I owe you an apology.  But right now he is innocent until proven guilty.

----------


## squarepusher

cop = thug, plain and simple

----------


## Krugerrand

I still find no witness saying the cop was attacked.

----------


## Krugerrand

> Any person victimized has rights, even off-duty officers.  If the report is correct, the guy was going to end up dead no matter which officer arrived.  That is risk you take by attempting to kill a cop. 
> 
>  If you are right then I owe you an apology.  But right now he is innocent until proven guilty.



I can find no evidence or witness that anybody tried to kill a cop.

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal phrase.  It does not mean the cop did not commit cold blooded murder.  AND - the chance of a fair trial is minuscule since the judicial system does not properly prosecute cops.

----------


## TonySutton

> He's a story with a better description of what happened.
> 
> http://www.heraldtribune.com/article...king/100419789


Thanks for the link, if you read the whole article at the very end you will read:




> Verdoni, however, may have violated an internal Sarasota Sheriff's Office policy that instructs officers not to get personally involved in neighborhood disputes or family incidents.
> 
> "Such disputes shall be processed by on-duty deputy sheriffs," the policy states. "Members shall not attempt to exercise authority or make arrests in their own quarrels ..."


I bet they are re-teaching their officers this policy.

----------


## dean.engelhardt

> cop = thug, plain and simple


If this guy was a truck driver, he'd be a hero.  

1) He stood up to a man that was harrassing him and his family.
2) He exercised his 2nd amendment rights.
3) He defended himself with necessary and reasonable force when another person attmpted to steal his gun in a fight.  

I can understand standing against asset forefeiture, drug war and other police abuses.  Not this.

Should cops stop responding to 911 call because it someone might escalate the situation to deadly force?

----------


## Fr3shjive

> Being abused is not part of the job.


I agree that being abused is not part of his job but neither is vigilante justice. Again, if your average citizen resorted to chasing down pranksters and the chase resulted in one of them dying they'd be facing criminal charges.





> First it is his duty as a swore officer of the law.


If you read the article that I posted there is a department policy that an officer calls on duty police officers to handle these type of matters and it advises officers not to take matters in to their own hand, probabl for situations just like these. Things get personal, people get emotional.




> Secondly, it is his right as a homeowner. Very citizen has a right to bear arms.


Im not saying that he doesnt have a right to bear arms but does somebody pranking you justify the use of a firearm?




> Would you say the same if he had any different job? I don't agree that staying in your home is the proper way to deal with pranksters.


I wouldnt have a problem with him handling this problem on his own but again I dont think a prank like this justifies the use of a firearm.




> Most sheriffs also have authority within the city. He probably has the proper authority if there is an agreement between the city and county.


Again, if you look at the article I posted you'll see that the officer violated the department policy.




> Any person victimized has rights, even off-duty officers.


Im not saying that he doesnt have a right to protect his home but the proper way to resolve this problem would be calling the police.




> If the report is correct, the guy was going to end up dead no matter which officer arrived. That is risk you take by attempting to kill a cop.


To be honest if the off duty officer had called on duty officers I dont think things would have ended this way. I think he let his personal feelings get involved in this situation. 

Also, the article doesnt say how far away from his patrol car the off duty officer  was when he caught the prankster so for all we know this kid could have been thinking he was being threatened by some random guy with a gun. The off duty officer was wearing sandals, shorts and a t-shirt, not exactly attire you expect ffrom somebody claiming to be a police officer. 




> If you are right then I owe you an apology. But right now he is innocent until proven guilty.


Whether or not the kid attacked the officer, I dont know, but what I do know is that the officer should have let on duty police handle this rather than taking matters into his own hands.

----------


## specsaregood

> 1) He stood up to a man that was harrassing him and his family.


He shot somebody for ringing his doorbell.




> 3) He defended himself with necessary and reasonable force when another person attmpted to steal his gun in a fight.


So he claims.  Luckily for him, dead men tell no tales.   

If a private citizen had done this, they'd be in jail now.

----------


## dean.engelhardt

Can't agrue made up BS.

"If you read the article that I posted there is a department policy that an officer calls on duty police officers to handle these type of matters and it advises officers not to take matters in to their own hand, probabl for situations just like these. Things get personal, people get emotional."

"He shot somebody for ringing his doorbell."

----------


## Fr3shjive

> Can't agrue made up BS.
> 
> "If you read the article that I posted there is a department policy that an officer calls on duty police officers to handle these type of matters and it advises officers not to take matters in to their own hand, probabl for situations just like these. Things get personal, people get emotional."


Whats BS? The policy to call on duty policy officers to handle personal disputes or that this was a personal?

----------


## specsaregood

> Whats BS? The policy to call on duty policy officers to handle personal disputes or that this was a personal?


Or, despite the possibility that the 20yr old lunged at him, in the end the kid was shot because he rang the guys doorbell and ran off.   The kid was in the wrong, but this officer should not have put himself in the position to shoot him.

----------


## dean.engelhardt

When misquotes and misrepresentation of the facts are used to win an arguement, I call BS.  

Link

"And, according to Knight and experts consulted by Herald-Tribune reporters, Verdoni had a right, if not a duty, to pursue Spann and he reacted rapidly to trespassers; ideally, there would have been no underage drinking and no intrusion on the property of a deputy and his family, either."

To say a man was killed for a prank is misrepresentation of the facts.  This person was killed because he attempted to use deadly force.  That in turn allowed the officer to defend himself.

----------


## TonySutton

> When misquotes and misrepresentation of the facts are used to win an arguement, I call BS.  
> 
> Link
> 
> "And, according to Knight and experts consulted by Herald-Tribune reporters, Verdoni had a right, if not a duty, to pursue Spann and he reacted rapidly to trespassers; ideally, there would have been no underage drinking and no intrusion on the property of a deputy and his family, either."
> 
> To say a man was killed for a prank is misrepresentation of the facts.  This person was killed because he attempted to use deadly force.  That in turn allowed the officer to defend himself.


At the end of the same article you referenced it says: 




> If Verdoni's account is accurate, the shooting would have been avoided had Spann stayed on the ground as commanded. If the deputy's report is inaccurate, we hope the investigations will discover any errors and Verdoni will be held accountable.


I think we need to wait until all the evidence is available for review.

----------


## specsaregood

//

----------


## John Taylor

> The kid was playing ding dong ditch, sure he's a little old to be doing that but its still very harmless. The cop car was parked in the driveway of his home so the kids probably knew they were messing with a cop. The cop probably took it personally and decided that he'll handle this himself.
> 
> Personally I think the cop should have called the police department and let them handle it rather than getting armed looking for ding dong ditchers. Seems excessive for a cop to need his firearm when he knows kids are just playing pranks on him.


It wasn't a kid, it was a twenty year old man attacking his private property rights and destroying his peaceful enjoyment of his property.

----------


## John Taylor

> And to claim one parties story is a "fact" is a misrepresentation as well.
> 
> 
> And are you sure that ringing somebodies doorbell or knocking on their door and running away is actually illegal?  Anybody knocking on my door is trespassing?
> Can you cite such a statute?
> 
> Also:
> http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/wea...f_defense.html
> 
> ...


I think the police officer was justified in chasing this man down for violating his private property rights, for tresspass, and for destruction of quiet enjoyment.

----------


## specsaregood

> It wasn't a kid, it was a twenty year old man attacking his private property rights and destroying his peaceful enjoyment of his property.


So anybody knocking on my door, I can confront or chase down with a gun and if they resist, shoot them?

----------


## Krugerrand

> So anybody knocking on my door, I can confront or chase down with a gun and if they resist, shoot them?


Yup.  And if you're not a cop, you'll go to jail for it.

----------


## John Taylor

> So anybody knocking on my door, I can confront or chase down with a gun and if they resist, shoot them?


This man didn't "knock" on the homeowner's door, he was engaged in a willful violation of this homeowner's private property rights. If you're a sworn peace officer, you can chase down people you personally have probable cause to suspect of tresspass to property, tresspass to chattle, violation of one's right to quiet enjoyment of their property: Yes. Furthermore, if someone unlawfully resists an arrest, be it a lawful citizens' arrest or a peace officer arrest, force may be used to stop the man violating the homeowner's rights.

----------


## John Taylor

> Yup.  And if you're not a cop, you'll go to jail for it.


Nonsense, if someone is violating one's rights, then force may be used to stop them. This homeowner only used deadly force when he believed his life to be in imminent danger. He is innocent until proven guilty, and, like any other homeowner, he has the right to take reasonable steps to protect the quiet enjoyment of his own property.

----------


## dean.engelhardt

So this man does not deserve individual liberty of private property rights and self defense?

----------


## John Taylor

> So this man does not deserve individual liberty of private property rights and self defense?


What these jokers are saying is that because he's a peace officer, he doesn't have private property rights... they hate him because he's a police officer, even if that means turning a blind eye to the violations of his rights by a man in the middle of the night.

----------


## specsaregood

> This man didn't "knock" on the homeowner's door, he was engaged in a willful violation of this homeowner's private property rights. If you're a sworn peace officer, you can chase down people you personally have probable cause to suspect of tresspass to property, tresspass to chattle, violation of one's right to quiet enjoyment of their property: Yes. Furthermore, if someone unlawfully resists an arrest, be it a lawful citizens' arrest or a peace officer arrest, force may be used to stop the man violating the homeowner's rights.


Was he warned to leave the premises?   Was the homeowner in any real threat of harm?

http://www.floridafirearmslaw.com/Tr...s-Florida.html



> *Trespass can be basically defined as unlawfully coming on, or staying on the property of another when you are on notice that your presence is not wanted*. As such, trespass is a fairly clear cut crime in Florida, but has really been abused in commercial applications. *As a general rule, you cannot be guilty of "trespass" unless you have been properly warned that your presence is not permitted, or no longer permitted on the subject property.* The warning may be verbal, and sometimes may be written. In a nutshell, if you enter the subject property having been "legally" pre-warned not to  you have committed the crime of trespass. Likewise, if you fail to leave property after being warned to do so by someone with greater authority than yourself  you also commit the crime.
> 
> The statutes governing this crime are found in Chapter 810 of the Florida Statutes. The first section is Florida Statute 810.08 that covers "Trespass in a structure or conveyance". This section states anyone who "without being authorized, licensed, or invited" who "willfully enters or remains in any structure or conveyance", or is warned by the owner or lessee of the premises or a person authorized by the owner or lessee to depart, and then refuses to do so  commits the offense of trespass in a structure or conveyance.
> 
> Violation is normally a second degree misdemeanor, but if theres a human being in the structure or conveyance (even if you dont know that) it becomes a first degree misdemeanor, and if you happen to be armed with a firearm or other weapon during the trespass  its called an armed trespass and becomes a third degree felony. The way the statute is interpreted is that you cant be convicted based on an innocent mistake. However, once you are warned by someone with authority - you must leave. If you decide to argue the issue, or argue their authority to have you leave  you have crossed the line into commission of the crime, and are subject to arrest. Interestingly enough, police and property owners do not have any authority under this statute to take you into custody or delay you unless you disobeyed their warning or refuse to leave.
> 
> A mistaken trespass is not a "trespass" until the warning to depart occurs. However, once warned, any refusal to immediately leave falls under Florida Statute 810.08(c), which subsection allows an owner or person authorized by the owner to take a trespasser into custody and hold them for the police in a reasonable manner. The abuses with this statute usually come from the practice of issuing a "trespass warning". This normally occurs in a commercial setting where a merchant decides (for whatever reason) that they dont want someone on their property ever again. Many times it involves an honest argument between the merchant and customer on services. The merchant gets tired of listening to the complaint, or doesnt want to hear the complaint  and tells the person to leave. They then try to issue the person a "trespass warning", sometimes demanding to see the persons identification, etc. The issuance of a trespass warning is especially prevalent when security guards, or police are involved. From a legal standpoint  there is no legal authority to issue a trespass warning unless there is an actual trespass. Likewise, there is no legal duty of the person who is warned to leave to wait around, give your name, give your identifications, or anything else  unless you were actually trespassing or caught in the commission of some other crime. Unfortunately, police and merchants rarely realize this distinction (and many dont care about it)  and Ive seen many citizens arrested for "obstructing" when they refuse to cooperate as to not giving information on the trespass warning. Of course, in such a situation neither the initial detention, nor the subsequent arrest is legal  but that doesnt make the trip to the jail a happy event for the hapless citizen.
> 
> Another thing you should know  and this is the most unfair thing about "trespass" in Florida  the merchant doesnt have to have a legitimate reason for telling you to leave. They can do it for any reason they want. At the theme parks  this is sometimes a real problem. From my experience, it seems that anytime someone becomes a suspected problem  problem or not  theyre told to leave. Likewise, try to make a legitimate complaint about some problem at a theme park and make even a minor issue of it  youre probably gonna be booted out  right or wrong. Many times a trespass warning is involved without the citizen having any idea that they are under no legal obligation to do anything but leave, and as a general rule  trespass warnings are "forever". It really stinks!
> ...

----------


## orenbus

there is a pretty good movie you guys should watch that talks about what would happen in the state of california if someone trespasses on your property and you go after them with a bat or weapon on your own lawn to try and detain them. It's called Felon.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1117385/

YouTube - FELON Movie Trailer

----------


## specsaregood

> What these jokers are saying is that because he's a peace officer, he doesn't have private property rights... they hate him because he's a police officer, even if that means turning a blind eye to the violations of his rights by a man in the middle of the night.


Oh please.  I have family that are cops.   What we are saying is they should be treated the same as civilians and subject to the same rules when not on duty.  If a non-cop had done this, they would be in jail.

----------


## John Taylor

> Oh please.  I have family that are cops.   What we are saying is they should be treated the same as civilians and subject to the same rules when not on duty.  If a non-cop had done this, they would be in jail.


This homeowner is not presently in trouble because he had a reasonable apprehension of imminent harm. 

This adult man, violated the sanctity of another man's home, at night, and proceded to flee when apprehended by a self-identified peace officer. 

Mrely because it is possible that a non-police officer wouldn't have known the legal definition of justificable homicide and would have somehow incriminated himself doesn't mean that we should throw a quite possibly innocent homeowner in jail. We should be educating non-police officers instead of trying to unjustly punish everyone.

----------


## Krugerrand

> Nonsense, if someone is violating one's rights, then force may be used to stop them. This homeowner only used deadly force when he believed his life to be in imminent danger. He is innocent until proven guilty, and, like any other homeowner, he has the right to take reasonable steps to protect the quiet enjoyment of his own property.


I'd be much more willing to buy into the innocent until proven guilty if time after time crimes committed by law enforcement officer are not thoroughly investigated and prosecuted.

----------


## tmosley

> So this man does not deserve individual liberty of private property rights and self defense?


He chased him into the streets and murdered him.  You have a right to shoot while you are on your own property AND they ignore warnings to leave.  

This officer escalated the situation, and did so on purpose.  Escalation is a violation of the NAP (see the example of two men in a bar getting in an argument, which leads to pushing, then punches, then an all out fight--it is both mens fault).  In this case, he chased down the man (who may or may not have been the person who knocked on his door), and got into a physical confrontation with him.  He had no right to do that.  The man had done him no harm, except for waking him up.

At that point *something* happened, and he killed the guy.  There is no evidence that he was lunged at, or had his gun grabbed at.  Being a member of a fascist organization, I am inclined to disbelieve his ass.  Remember, cops lie for a living.  They are also thieves (civil asset forfeiture).

He should be charged with assault if nothing else, for wrestling the guy to the ground without cause.

----------


## specsaregood

> This homeowner is not presently in trouble because he had a reasonable apprehension of imminent harm.


He only had that reasonable apprehension of harm AFTER he committed the crime as I see it.  Him chasing the guy down and pulling a gun on him.




> This adult man, violated the sanctity of another man's home, at night, and proceded to flee when apprehended by a self-identified peace officer.


He fled before the guy even left the house.   After he left the property, he wasn't even remotely trespassing.

The cop overreacted and his emotions got the better of him and now a 20yr old is dead.    This is why they tell the cops not to get involved in situations that are personal to them.

I hope they drug tested the cop for steroids.

----------


## Krugerrand

> I'd be much more willing to buy into the innocent until proven guilty if time after time crimes committed by law enforcement officer are not thoroughly investigated and prosecuted.


Plus, what about the rights of the accused.  This guy here was presumed guilty until dead.

----------


## specsaregood

Ya know, I'm going to see a family member that is a 30yr veteran of the police force this weekend.  I'll ask her what she thinks about the whole, chase down with a gun somebody that knocked on the door and ran away and report back.   She is also a landlord, so she should have a good idea of private property rights.   I have a feeling she will not side with the cop here, but we'll see and I'll post her response either way.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Oh please.  I have family that are cops.   What we are saying is they should be treated the same as civilians and subject to the same rules when not on duty.  If a non-cop had done this, they would be in jail.


That about sums up where I am at on this story, at least until more facts come out.

That, and who will testify to the "tackling and reaching for the weapon", outside of the cop involved.

And one other thing, let me vent a pet peeve here:

We are *ALL* civilians. Cops do *not* have the right nor the authority to claim the line of demarcation that the military does.

I know they think they do, I know they are being trained to act that way, and regard us as either the "enemy" or "civilian non combatants", but they do *not* have that right nor do they have the legal backing to make that stick.

A cop, as a paid public servant, is just as much a "civilian" as any of the rest of us.

We are, in fact, citizens.

----------


## John Taylor

> He only had that reasonable apprehension of harm AFTER he committed the crime as I see it.  Him chasing the guy down and pulling a gun on him.


After the adult man violated the homeowner's rights? The only person who we KNOW committed a crime at this point is the man who violated the homeowner's property rights.




> He fled before the guy even left the house.   After he left the property, he wasn't even remotely trespassing.


The police officer saw the crime being committed, and like any person whose rights are vioalted, had a right to redress.




> The cop overreacted and his emotions got the better of him and now a 20yr old is dead.    This is why they tell the cops not to get involved in situations that are personal to them.


How do you know the homeowner over-reacted? We know that the quiet enjoyment of his private property were violated by this adult man in the middle of the night... that's what we know for sure.

----------


## specsaregood

> How do you know the homeowner over-reacted? We know that the quiet enjoyment of his private property were violated by this adult man in the middle of the night... that's what we know for sure.


Because the crime was not sufficient for "use of deadly force" drawing a gun on somebody is use of deadly force in FL, even if it is unloaded.  He was not in any imminent threat, esp since the guy ran off and left his property.   Disturbing the peace or quiet time is not sufficient cause.

----------


## John Taylor

> He chased him into the streets and murdered him.  You have a right to shoot while you are on your own property AND they ignore warnings to leave.


You do not have the right to shoot someone over a property dispute. The only person we KNOW was an aggressor here was the man who rang the doorbell. Lethal force can only be used when one is under a reasonable apprehension for one's physical safety.




> This officer escalated the situation, and did so on purpose.  Escalation is a violation of the NAP (see the example of two men in a bar getting in an argument, which leads to pushing, then punches, then an all out fight--it is both mens fault).  In this case, he chased down the man (who may or may not have been the person who knocked on his door), and got into a physical confrontation with him.  He had no right to do that.  The man had done him no harm, except for waking him up.


The man did him harm, violated his private property rights, and threatened him with imminent harm. (at least we can't say that he didn't at this point--and innocent until proven guilty).




> At that point *something* happened, and he killed the guy.  There is no evidence that he was lunged at, or had his gun grabbed at.  Being a member of a fascist organization, I am inclined to disbelieve his ass.  Remember, cops lie for a living.  They are also thieves (civil asset forfeiture).


There is no evidence available at present to not believe the police officer here. The adult man shot was tresspassing, was violating the homeowner's rights, and did not stop when confronted by the police officer.




> He should be charged with assault if nothing else, for wrestling the guy to the ground without cause.


Charged with assault? For arresting someone who was violating his private property rights? What kind of fascist are you?

----------


## dean.engelhardt

> That about sums up where I am at on this story, at least until more facts come out.
> 
> That, and who will testify to the "tackling and reaching for the weapon", outside of the cop involved.
> 
> And one other thing, let me vent a pet peeve here:
> 
> We are *ALL* civilians. Cops do *not* have the right nor the authority to claim the line of demarcation that the military does.
> 
> I know they think they do, I know they are being trained to act that way, and regard us as either the "enemy" or "civilian non combatants", but they do *not* have that right nor do they have the legal backing to make that stick.
> ...


You might want to take up your agrument with Webster.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> After the adult man violated the homeowner's rights? The only person who we KNOW committed a crime at this point is the man who violated the homeowner's property rights.


The law in every state says that you can use lethal force only to stop the immediate commission of a crime on life or property. Some states make exclusions for property as well.

The fact that the deceased violated the cop's property rights is not in question.

However, that violation had ceased.

The question comes down to what happened after the fact.

There is no question that, if you or I chased down somebody for such a minor infraction and they ended up dead in the ensuing scuffle, we would be held accountable, would be in jail and held civilly liable as well.

----------


## John Taylor

> Because the crime was not sufficient for "use of deadly force" drawing a gun on somebody is use of deadly force in FL, even if it is unloaded.  He was not in any imminent threat, esp since the guy ran off and left his property.   Disturbing the peace or quiet time is not sufficient cause.


The man was not shot for ringing another man's doorbell in the middle of the night, even though that is a serious violation of one's private property rights. He was shot (at least at this point we only have a dead criminal and a homeowner who stopped him so we can't say this is false), because he threatened the police officer.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> You might want to take up your agrument with Webster.


I will, thanks.

ETA - in a quick perusal of the CFRs and USC and the Geneva convention I see nothing assigning, in the US, "Third Convention" coverage to cops, meaning they are considered, under the rules of warfare, civilians.

I'll keep looking.

----------


## specsaregood

//

----------


## John Taylor

> The law in every state says that you can use lethal force only to stop the immediate commission of a crime on life or property. Some states make exclusions for property as well.
> 
> The fact that the deceased violated the cop's property rights is not in question.
> 
> However, that violation had ceased.
> 
> The question comes down to what happened after the fact.
> 
> There is no question that, if you or I chased down somebody for such a minor infraction and they ended up dead in the ensuing scuffle, we would be held accountable, would be in jail and held civilly liable as well.


You are right about the law. I am not defending killing someone for ringing a door in the middle of the night, even though that is an oafish thing to do.

I am simply saying, it is entirely possible that this homeowner caught a break because he knows the law and could tell the other responding officers that he felt a reasonable apprehension for his physical safety, but the fact is, everyone should have an equal break there... if someone does feel in reasonable apprehension for their safety, and they are confronted by a barbarian like this man who violated the homeowner's rights, and they defend themselves, then we should not crucify him.

----------


## John Taylor

> Like I said, I'll ask an expert this weekend.  my wife will want to use deadly force on me, but I'll risk it -- I promised her I wouldn't broach these subjects with family after the last broohaha I got into with a family member that is a narc cop over the topic of asset seizure.


Sounds good man, let me know what he says, it'll be interesting to hear.

----------


## Krugerrand

> The man was not shot for ringing another man's doorbell in the middle of the night, even though that is a serious violation of one's private property rights. He was shot (at least at this point we only have a dead criminal and a homeowner who stopped him so we can't say this is false), *because he threatened the police officer*.


John, for as quick as you are to have the cop innocent until proven guilty, you sure don't seem to mind writing the guy off as guilty without a conviction.  Perhaps you want to rephrase that to "presumably" threatened a police officer.  Sadly, he doesn't get the benefit of innocent until proven guilty.  

Plus, did he really ring the door bell?  Perhaps it was his friend that did it while he was telling him not to.  Again, you are quick to say he's guilty of this ... but I see no court conviction.

I'm not for sentencing the cop without a trial.  But, the court ruling does not make somebody innocent or guilty in real life.  And, that cop has thing going to his advantage with the investigation team and the DA's office.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Like I said, I'll ask an expert this weekend.  my wife will want to use deadly force on me, but I'll risk it -- I* promised her I wouldn't broach these subjects with family after the last broohaha I got into with a family member that is a narc cop over the topic of asset seizure*.


I'd like to hear about that.

----------


## Krugerrand

> You are right about the law. I am not defending killing someone for ringing a door in the middle of the night, even though that is an oafish thing to do.
> 
> I am simply saying, it is entirely possible that this homeowner caught a break because he knows the law and could tell the other responding officers that he felt a reasonable apprehension for his physical safety, but the fact is, everyone should have an equal break there... if someone does feel in reasonable apprehension for their safety, and they are confronted by a *barbarian* like this man who violated the homeowner's rights, and they defend themselves, then we should not crucify him.


Barbarian??  HA!  "Stupid fool" is a better description.  And please, could you at least say "supposed" barbarian?

----------


## specsaregood

> I'd like to hear about that.


Well I think you can guess which side I took.  On the otherhand their jobs depend upon it for funding and think it is justified since "drugs are illegal".  But at the same time, even the cops on that side of the family agree that the "war on drugs" is unwinnable; but don't think any alternatives will work.

I think we hit a climax, near the end when I told them they were basically a crime syndicate advocating theft of personal property.  But by the time I got to that statement, I had figured out we were gonna have to agree to disagree.  

Edit: forgot to mention the crazy ex-uncle in law, retired cop that said,  _The war on drugs is good because it keeps all the ******* in jail._.  But he isn't "family" anymore so I don't even have to pretend to like him.

----------


## John Taylor

> Barbarian??  HA!  "Stupid fool" is a better description.  And please, could you at least say "supposed" barbarian?


Sure, stupid fool is fine. That's what I meant when I said "oaf". He's alledged to have violated this man's private property rights. The man caught him, ordered him to stop, the man ran, and was caught. Now, we don't know precisely what happened, but I have seen no evidence, other than a visceral hatred towards police (I'm not saying distrust isn't warranted, but there are a lot of guys just trying to enfore the law and get home to the kids), that tends to put the homeowner in a bad light. 

From what I've seen here, the primary objection is not that the tresspasser ended up shot, but that the homeowner wasn't arrested. I'm just saying that if someone reasonably feared for their safety, even if they pursued someone who had violated their private property rights, and shot someone, they should not be charged, be they police or plumber.

----------


## MelissaWV

This thread has taught me one thing:  if my car breaks down, or I'm lost, or I'm injured, or I have some other emergency in the middle of the night, I shouldn't ring someone's doorbell.  Before you say "oh but you would have stuck around if you had a genuine emergency," I might not, especially if some grouchy badass carrying a gun decided to stomp his way to his door and looked like he wasn't going to wait around for explanations.  I might even have chosen to ring that person's doorbell, seeing the police car in the driveway and having no better recourse.

Thank you for setting me straight.

----------


## John Taylor

> John, for as quick as you are to have the cop innocent until proven guilty, you sure don't seem to mind writing the guy off as guilty without a conviction.  Perhaps you want to rephrase that to "presumably" threatened a police officer.  Sadly, he doesn't get the benefit of innocent until proven guilty.  
> 
> Plus, did he really ring the door bell?  Perhaps it was his friend that did it while he was telling him not to.  Again, you are quick to say he's guilty of this ... but I see no court conviction.
> 
> I'm not for sentencing the cop without a trial.  But, the court ruling does not make somebody innocent or guilty in real life.  And, that cop has thing going to his advantage with the investigation team and the DA's office.


You're right, I should have put the word *alledged* in there. 

The reason the homeowner wasn't charged was not because the homeowner was a police officer, but because he was under a reasonable apprehension of imminent harm. If that is not the case, he should be charged. End of matter.

I don't think any of you would be upset if the homeowner was a plumber and he wasn't charged...

----------


## John Taylor

> This thread has taught me one thing:  if my car breaks down, or I'm lost, or I'm injured, or I have some other emergency in the middle of the night, I shouldn't ring someone's doorbell.  Before you say "oh but you would have stuck around if you had a genuine emergency," I might not, especially if some grouchy badass carrying a gun decided to stomp his way to his door and looked like he wasn't going to wait around for explanations.  I might even have chosen to ring that person's doorbell, seeing the police car in the driveway and having no better recourse.
> 
> Thank you for setting me straight.


You shouldn't ring someone's doorbell and run. You have no right to be on another person's property, and if do encroach on another person, and then flee, you create probable cause for the homeowner or anyone else to reasonably suspect you of breaking the law. 

You're welcome.

----------


## MelissaWV

> You shouldn't ring someone's doorbell and run. You have no right to be on another person's property, and if do encroach on another person, and then flee, you create probable cause for the homeowner or anyone else to reasonably suspect you of breaking the law. 
> 
> You're welcome.


Glad you think so.  Let's take it one step further, mmkay?

Let's say I'm running at night (as I am most nights) and I'm "running away" from a house where someone rang a doorbell and hid in the bushes.  To someone inside their house, they hear a doorbell ringing at a bad hour of the evening, open their door, and see some tall brown person running down the sidewalk away from their house.  Having my headphones on, I'm not sure if I'd hear them yelling "Hey!  Stop!  Police!"  I'd probably be pretty startled if the person stopped me physically, as what I would be seeing is some crazy guy in shorts and sandals with a gun.  My reaction would not be good.

You're as guilty of leaping to conclusions as the next person, and "acting guilty" is not the same as threatening someone or their property.  There is a major disconnect between the act (doorbell rang) and the "suspect" (how does he know the person he saw "fleeing" was the person who so offended him by ringing his doorbell?).  There is another major disconnect between the severity of the shooting and the severity of the threat (if the cop had not had the gun on him, would this person have been so threatening? or did the policeman create a life-threatening situation by bringing the gun to begin with?).  I suppose if he'd just shot the guy in the leg, a lot of these questions might be answered one way or another, or at least more leads could be generated.  

Lastly, you can do your own internet search for how private citizens fared when someone was simply being a nuissance and they shot them.  The result is not usually paid vacation.  Time will tell if that's the result here.  The officer violated police procedures/rules, and he made a pretty bad call that could have gone much worse if you think about it, or is ringing someone's doorbell now good enough to start a gunfight in the street (he didn't KNOW this guy was unarmed when he started chasing him around a residential area without backup, and he didn't KNOW whether or not there were other people around backing the suspect up)?

The thread is disconcerting on both sides.  Maybe I should make up shirts that say "DON'T SHOOT!" to go jogging in.

You're welcome.

----------


## John Taylor

> Glad you think so.  Let's take it one step further, mmkay?


I'm really not sure I want to go any further with you... mmkay? 




> Let's say I'm running at night (as I am most nights) and I'm "running away" from a house where someone rang a doorbell and hid in the bushes.  To someone inside their house, they hear a doorbell ringing at a bad hour of the evening, open their door, and see some tall brown person running down the sidewalk away from their house.  Having my headphones on, I'm not sure if I'd hear them yelling "Hey!  Stop!  Police!"  I'd probably be pretty startled if the person stopped me physically, as what I would be seeing is some crazy guy in shorts and sandals with a gun.  My reaction would not be good.


And the inevitable hypothetical... 

I would suggest continuing running. In fact, The fact that this guy ran was not the problem. No one is advocating shooting anyone for running, even if they first were violating a homeowner's rights.

Your hypothical sounds like self-defense on your part. 




> You're as guilty of leaping to conclusions as the next person, and "acting guilty" is not the same as threatening someone or their property.  There is a major disconnect between the act (doorbell rang) and the "suspect" (how does he know the person he saw "fleeing" was the person who so offended him by ringing his doorbell?).  There is another major disconnect between the severity of the shooting and the severity of the threat (if the cop had not had the gun on him, would this person have been so threatening? or did the policeman create a life-threatening situation by bringing the gun to begin with?).  I suppose if he'd just shot the guy in the leg, a lot of these questions might be answered one way or another, or at least more leads could be generated.


I didn't say this boor should have been shot merely because there was probable cause to stop and arrest him. 





> Lastly, you can do your own internet search for how private citizens fared when someone was simply being a nuissance and they shot them.  The result is not usually paid vacation.  Time will tell if that's the result here.  The officer violated police procedures/rules, and he made a pretty bad call that could have gone much worse if you think about it, or is ringing someone's doorbell now good enough to start a gunfight in the street (he didn't KNOW this guy was unarmed when he started chasing him around a residential area without backup, and he didn't KNOW whether or not there were other people around backing the suspect up)?


I have never said someone should be shot for being a nuisance. I said, it should be justifiable to shoot someone when a person is under a resonable apprehension for their physical safety. I've had guys kick in the door to a place I was at, and I chased them down in the steet barefoot. Had someone been hurt, it would have been because they initiated violence or threatened me, who was only out to make a citizen's arrest... I see nothing here to pin on the homeowner. 




> The thread is disconcerting on both sides.  Maybe I should make up shirts that say "DON'T SHOOT!" to go jogging in.
> 
> You're welcome.



This adult man was "allegedly" violating the private property rights of a homeowner, he wasn't "out jogging". But do whatever you need to do.

----------


## specsaregood

> *The officer violated police procedures/rules*, and he made a pretty bad call that could have gone much worse if you think about it, or is ringing someone's doorbell now good enough to start a gunfight in the street (he didn't KNOW this guy was unarmed when he started chasing him around a residential area without backup, and he didn't KNOW whether or not there were other people around backing the suspect up)?


I think the bolded part is the key.  He violated procedures that I assume were put in place to prevent officers from acting out when they are emotionally involved and likely not thinking clearly.  In a way, it would be like driving drunk.  If you kill someone while driving drunk and you usually charged with negligent homocide, IIRC.

----------


## John Taylor

> I think the bolded part is the key.  He violated procedures that I assume were put in place to prevent officers from acting out when they are emotionally involved and likely not thinking clearly.  In a way, it would be like driving drunk.  If you kill someone while driving drunk and you usually charged with negligent homocide, IIRC.


Any other homeowner wouldn't have been charged with any crime if he said he was under a reasonable apprehension that his life was in danger. I don't think we should penalize someone and charge them with homicide merely because they wear a badge for their day-job.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> You shouldn't ring someone's doorbell and run. You have no right to be on another person's property, and if do encroach on another person, and then flee, you create probable cause for the homeowner or anyone else to reasonably suspect you of breaking the law. 
> 
> You're welcome.


Ringing a doorbell is a civil matter not a criminal matter.  And to think I have read about five pages of posts from someone who would criminalize ringing a doorbell and dismisses discrimination from public places of business.  Typical republican advocate of economic liberty and criminalizing social liberties.  

First let's get into the notion of private property.  Who has accepted responsibility for the property and is holding the bond, the cop or the city/county?   I doubt he has accepted responsibility for his property and likely recorded a deed like most people.

Did the cop have any signs on his property to indicate solicitations are unwelcome?  Did the cop exercise responsibility installing a security camera system to identify unwelcome solicitors to pursue civil sanctions?

You criminalized the intent of someone ringing a doorbell.  What is the intent of a vigilante homeowner that pursues a person who pranks a doorbell?  Revenge or identification?  What is the intent of someone who takes a gun with them in a pursuit over a civil matter?  The cop obtained everything he needed to file a civil claim by following the guy.  There was absolutely no need whatsoever to confront the kid unless his intent was revenge.  As soon as he confronted the kid his intent is clearly revenge not identification.

I am still accepting sponsors for Harvard to get a title of nobility and screw people over

----------


## specsaregood

> Any other homeowner wouldn't have been charged with any crime if he said he was under a reasonable apprehension that his life was in danger. I don't think we should penalize someone and charge them with homicide merely because they wear a badge for their day-job.


You have a lot more faith in the system than I do.  I think that is the real root of the disagreement here.

----------


## John Taylor

> Ringing a doorbell is a civil matter not a criminal matter.  And to think I have read about five pages of posts from someone who would criminalize ringing a doorbell and dismisses discrimination from public places of business.  Typical republican advocate of economic liberty and criminalizing social liberties..


I don't dispute that ringing someone's doorbell in the middle of the night could be a civil matter, but it could also be a criminal matter, depending on the severity or the repetitiveness of the actions. 

I am in favor of private property rights, something which apparently is completely foreign to you. This boorish tresspasser was violating the private property rights of a homeowner, who chased down the rights-abuser and caught him. 




> First let's get into the notion of private property.  Who has accepted responsibility for the property and is holding the bond, the cop or the city/county?   I doubt he has accepted responsibility for his property and likely recorded a deed like most people.


Recorded a deed? Yeah, I'd hope so, that's been the standard practice under the English Common-Law system we have for... oh I don't know, OVER A THOUSAND YEARS!!!!

Government's primary reason for existence is the defend private individual's title to their own property... that's why people record deeds, so their rights can be protected. 




> Did the cop have any signs on his property to indicate solicitations are unwelcome?  Did the cop exercise responsibility installing a security camera system to identify unwelcome solicitors to pursue civil sanctions?
> 
> You criminalized the intent of someone ringing a doorbell.  What is the intent of a vigilante homeowner that pursues a person who pranks a doorbell?  Revenge or identification?  What is the intent of someone who takes a gun with them in a pursuit over a civil matter?  The cop obtained everything he needed to file a civil claim by following the guy.  There was absolutely no need whatsoever to confront the kid unless his intent was revenge.  As soon as he confronted the kid his intent is clearly revenge not identification.


"Did the cop"? You mean, "did the homeowner" right??? I have not criminalized anything, I've merely said that this ADULT MAN violated the private property rights of a homeowner. Using a weapon on such a tresspassor would have been just fine under our old common law system, but is impermissible today... but even by today's very very very conservative standard for using force to defend one's property, when someone is threatened, they have the right to use whatever force is necessary to protect themselves. 

A homeowner doesn't need a sign on their property to notify people that they shouldn't be disturbing people in the middle of the night!

----------


## MelissaWV

> This adult man was "allegedly" violating the private property rights of a homeowner, he wasn't "out jogging". But do whatever you need to do.


You base this entirely on the homeowner's perspective.  He was not "in danger," he was "defending his property" or what have you from someone who was, from the homeowner's perspective, already leaving the scene.  Every action in the hypothetical was the same as the reported actions listed in the OP/article.  The original act (doorbell), the perception of someone leaving the scene (the officer didn't see this person ring the doorbell), the pursuit, the apprehension (which did not occur on the property but some distance removed from it), the attack (which I am taking at face value, rather than saying the cop lied), and the shooting.  

As for whether or not flight is important, you stated yourself:




> You have no right to be on another person's property, and if do encroach on another person, *and then flee*, you create probable cause for the homeowner or anyone else to reasonably suspect you of breaking the law.


Why do you not realize that the "flight" is a matter of perception, one which cannot be resolved now in any way, shape, or form?  If I'm suspected of breaking the law, since I am fleeing, then why chase me down on foot through a residential area at night with a gun?  Doesn't that create the potential for myriad tragic outcomes?  Why seek to escalate something in this manner?  Please cite the cases where regular citizens rushing out after a "suspect" who did something like ring their doorbell, or knock on their door, or create a similar level of discomfort got away with it because they felt they were in such mortal danger from that act?  If you are under reasonable apprehension that your life is in danger, the "average homeowner" would not go chasing down that danger and looking to continue the incident.  If the kid was so dangerous, he'd be dead on the officer's lawn.




> He said he chased down one prankster in his squad car and found him outside a home in the 300 block of Lisbon Street. There he encountered Spann and told him to lay down while he called for backup.


What is interesting about that is that the officer did not attempt to arrest this guy on his own property.  He "chased down one prankster" (notice they don't use Spann's name) and then "encountered Spann."  If an average citizen did this, note they would be trespassing on the third party's property, too.  Question:  If that party had come out with a gun, and shot both the officer and Spann in "self-defense," do you think the fact the officer was a policeman would come up at trial?

----------


## John Taylor

> You have a lot more faith in the system than I do.  I think that is the real root of the disagreement here.


If you know the law, and you stay within it in a situation like this, you're going to be just fine. 

If anyone else had done this and hadn't been charged, none of you would have a problem, but because it's a police officer, you have blinder's on. 

I'm saying that EVERYONE should have the protections of self-defense, and should be able to protect themselves and their property without being charged with crimes.

----------


## MelissaWV

> If you know the law, and you stay within it in a situation like this, you're going to be just fine. 
> 
> If anyone else had done this and hadn't been charged, none of you would have a problem, but because it's a police officer, you have blinder's on. 
> 
> I'm saying that EVERYONE should have the protections of self-defense, and should be able to protect themselves and their property without being charged with crimes.



He was defending a third party on that third party's property from someone he perceived to have offended him on his property... from having their doorbell abused.

----------


## dean.engelhardt

> I think the bolded part is the key.  He violated procedures that I assume were put in place to prevent officers from acting out when they are emotionally involved and likely not thinking clearly.  In a way, it would be like driving drunk.  If you kill someone while driving drunk and you usually charged with negligent homocide, IIRC.


As stated before, the sheriffs department stated the officer had a right if not a duty to follow the suspect from his home.  Liberty Forest police procedure do not apply to him.

Link

----------


## John Taylor

> You base this entirely on the homeowner's perspective.  He was not "in danger," he was "defending his property" or what have you from someone who was, from the homeowner's perspective, already leaving the scene.  Every action in the hypothetical was the same as the reported actions listed in the OP/article.  The original act (doorbell), the perception of someone leaving the scene (the officer didn't see this person ring the doorbell), the pursuit, the apprehension (which did not occur on the property but some distance removed from it), the attack (which I am taking at face value, rather than saying the cop lied), and the shooting.


Yeah, I am very proud to be an advocate of private property rights, and the rights of the individual against aggression. I don't care if the homeowner was a nazi, I care about who was violation whose rights. 

The homeowner wasn't using deadly force when he was protecting his property (even though I think that the common-law is correct and that one should be able to use deadly force to protect one's property), he used deadly force when he (says he) believed himself to be in imminent danger. 





> Why do you not realize that the "flight" is a matter of perception, one which cannot be resolved now in any way, shape, or form?  If I'm suspected of breaking the law, since I am fleeing, then why chase me down on foot through a residential area at night with a gun?  Doesn't that create the potential for myriad tragic outcomes?  Why seek to escalate something in this manner?  Please cite the cases where regular citizens rushing out after a "suspect" who did something like ring their doorbell, or knock on their door, or create a similar level of discomfort got away with it because they felt they were in such mortal danger from that act?  If you are under reasonable apprehension that your life is in danger, the "average homeowner" would not go chasing down that danger and looking to continue the incident.  If the kid was so dangerous, he'd be dead on the officer's lawn.


If I see someone bleeding on the ground and you running from the scene, I very well might just chase you... I'd have probable cause to suspect you, even as a common-citizen. I never read about any "kid", I read about a full grown MAN violating another man's property at night.

----------


## John Taylor

> He was defending a third party on that third party's property from someone he perceived to have offended him on his property... from having their doorbell abused.


Wrong, the homeowner was defending HIS own rights, which were being violated by this boorish man...

----------


## John Taylor

*A sad and unnecessary death
Questions surround deputy's fatal shooting of Venice man*

Verdoni reported that he repeatedly advised Spann to lie on the ground and follow his commands. Verdoni said that, after he radioed for assistance, Spann -- a small but accomplished wrestler in high school -- initiated a scuffle. Verdoni said Spann tried to grab his gun; the deputy shot Spann twice.

Sheriff Knight says witnesses and other evidence support key aspects of Verdoni's report; some of Spann's friends and an attorney hired by one of them disputed that account. The forensic evidence is likely to support or undermine Verdoni's version of the incident; sadly, Spann will never be able to give his account.

Other weapons unavailable

Some letters to the editor question why Verdoni grabbed his firearm before chasing Spann in the sheriff's vehicle.

Ideally, Verdoni would have been fully equipped with less lethal weapons, though it's not clear whether he could have used, say, a Taser or pepper spray in the event of a physical confrontation with Spann.

And, according to Knight and experts consulted by Herald-Tribune reporters, Verdoni had a right, if not a duty, to pursue Spann and he reacted rapidly to trespassers; ideally, there would have been* no underage drinking and no intrusion on the property of a deputy and his family, either.*
One of Spann's friends described the door banging as "stupid fun." It was, indeed, a dumb prank. But the targets of such behavior don't think it's fun, and this incident showed how things can go tragically awry.

If Verdoni's account is accurate, the shooting would have been avoided had Spann stayed on the ground as commanded. If the deputy's report is inaccurate, we hope the investigations will discover any errors and Verdoni will be held accountable.

The questions about this shooting should be answered as thoroughly and as quickly as possible. But there are other questions, too: Is underage drinking condoned, if not enabled, by adults and alcohol vendors in Venice and Sarasota County?

And what, if anything, can be done to help the community cope with -- and learn from -- the loss of young people?

----------


## MelissaWV

> Wrong, the homeowner was defending HIS own rights, which were being violated by this boorish man...


You just said yourself I don't have the right to be on someone else's property.  Why does this homeowner have the right to be on another homeowner's property, let alone to kill the person who the first homeowner believes rang his doorbell (no hard evidence)?  

This did NOT happen on the first person's property.  The violation already happened (in the PAST).  Chasing a person down after they've gotten away, trespassing onto someone else's property, getting into a scuffle on that other person's property with someone you BELIEVE has PREVIOUSLY wronged you, and ultimately SHOOTING that person is not "defending his rights."  Your assumptions of what I would and wouldn't believe if it were someone else are in error, by the way.  Chasing someone down to exact revenge is entirely different than shooting a perceived intruder.

Which is it, by the way?  You have gone on to post an article citing the officer's duty to give chase as a policeman, but your other posts request it be forgotten that he's an officer at all.

----------


## specsaregood

//

----------


## John Taylor

> You just said yourself I don't have the right to be on someone else's property.  Why does this homeowner have the right to be on another homeowner's property, let alone to kill the person who the first homeowner believes rang his doorbell (no hard evidence)?  
> 
> This did NOT happen on the first person's property.  The violation already happened (in the PAST).  Chasing a person down after they've gotten away, trespassing onto someone else's property, getting into a scuffle on that other person's property with someone you BELIEVE has PREVIOUSLY wronged you, and ultimately SHOOTING that person is not "defending his rights."  Your assumptions of what I would and wouldn't believe if it were someone else are in error, by the way.  Chasing someone down to exact revenge is entirely different than shooting a perceived intruder.


The homeowner was on HIS OWN PROPERTY, and the intoxicated, drunk man entered on it, and then fled... The aggressor had not "gotten away", the homeowner was in hot pursuit, and is allowed under Florida law and the laws of ALL 50 states to pursue such an aggressor, even unto private property. 

This intoxicated tresspassor was not shot because he was tresspassing or ringing a doorbell, he was shot because the homeowner believed his life to be threatened. (and, as this boorish aggressor was an accomplished wrestler, he very well may be right).

----------


## John Taylor

> And I followup with:
> http://www.heraldtribune.com/article...1047?p=4&tc=pg






> Spann, 20, had been drinking alcohol, against Florida law, with friends before the incident. As they walked home from a pub in Venice at about 1 a.m. Friday, Spann and a friend banged on the door of Verdoni's home.
> 
> Verdoni's clearly marked sheriff's cruiser was in the driveway; his wife and infant daughter were in the house.


Interesting. Banging on someone's door in the middle of the night when you have a wife and infant daughter present doesn't warrant being chased? Bull$#@!.

----------


## specsaregood

//

----------


## John Taylor

> Once again we get to where we have different faith in the outcome.
> I'm of the opinion that if it wasn't a cop, the person would be in jail or out on bail awaiting jail.
> You aren't.  We'll have to agree to disagree on that matter.


No one who uses deadly force when they are in a reasonable fear for their life from a lawbreaking pubk like this guy should be charged!! EVEN if they are a police officer.

----------


## specsaregood

> No one who uses deadly force when they are in a reasonable fear for their life from a lawbreaking pubk like this guy should be charged!! EVEN if they are a police officer.


That isn't really the issue.  Is one in the right to chase down with a gun, somebody that banged on their door and ran away?  The death would not have occurred if the officer had not done that.

I want the guy to be charged, so this can go to a judge and we can get case law that says that such behavior is appropriate.  If anything, to protect any non-law enforcement officers (citizens) that find themselves in a similar position in the future.   How about that?  If it never goes before a judge, we don't get a legal ruling on the matter.  Just think, such case law might protect YOU in the future.

----------


## John Taylor

> That isn't really the issue.  Is one in the right to chase down with a gun, somebody that banged on their door and ran away?  The death would not have occurred if the officer had not done that.
> 
> I want the guy to be charged, so this can go to a judge and we can get case law that says that such behavior is appropriate.  If anything, to protect any non-law enforcement officers (citizens) that find themselves in a similar position in the future.   How about that?


How do you charge a dead guy with a crime? He sounds guilty as hell, but he is dead... 

At this point the revealed facts establish that the death would not of occured had the thugish drunk not pounded on another man's door in the middle of the night. 

From what I can tell, the homeowner should not face any legal sanctions whatsoever. We need to protect everyone's rights to defend themselves and their property, even if they have newborn babies.

----------


## John Taylor

> That isn't really the issue.  Is one in the right to chase down with a gun, somebody that banged on their door and ran away?  The death would not have occurred if the officer had not done that.
> 
> I want the guy to be charged, so this can go to a judge and we can get case law that says that such behavior is appropriate.  If anything, to protect any non-law enforcement officers (citizens) that find themselves in a similar position in the future.   How about that?  If it never goes before a judge, we don't get a legal ruling on the matter.  Just think, such case law might protect YOU in the future.


Sure, the precedent that the homeowner is innocent might protect my rights in the future, but I don't support charging innocent men with crimes. Period.

----------


## leipo

> Police logs do not have any responses on Valencia or Lisbon or Ponce De Leon streets the night of the shooting. McNulty and the department's records manager had no explanation for the lack of records.


What a coincidence.

----------


## specsaregood

> How do you charge a dead guy with a crime? He sounds guilty as hell, but he is dead...


No, I meant the cop.




> From what I can tell, the homeowner should not face any legal sanctions whatsoever. We need to protect everyone's rights to defend themselves and their property, even if they have newborn babies.


Ok, lets have it to go trial, so that it can be decided and we can get precedent so any non-law enforcement officers in a similar situation can face no legal sanctions whatsoever.

----------


## John Taylor

> What a coincidence.


Where is this from?

----------


## John Taylor

> No, I meant the cop.
> 
> 
> Ok, lets have it to go trial, so that it can be decided and we can get precedent so any non-law enforcement officers in a similar situation can face no legal sanctions whatsoever.


Why the hell should be charge a most likely innocent man with a crime and potentially ruin his life just to get some measily precedent?

----------


## leipo

> Where is this from?


From the article...

http://www.heraldtribune.com/article...=3&tc=pg&tc=ar

----------


## specsaregood

> Why the hell should be charge a most likely innocent man with a crime and potentially ruin his life just to get some measily precedent?


"Most Likely", sounds like even you have doubts.  There is definitely enough cause for a charge.  Let's face it, the cops have ruined their own credibility in the past.

----------


## specsaregood

> Police logs do not have any responses on Valencia or Lisbon or Ponce De Leon streets the night of the shooting. McNulty and the department's records manager had no explanation for the lack of records.





> What a coincidence.


That darned blue line strikes again.

----------


## MelissaWV

> That darned blue line strikes again.


Stop being mean!  This man was in hot pursuit, and had no time to call this in.  Maybe he hit the button to call in but in his excitement he somehow fudged the motion and it didn't go through.  This was important, dammit!  He was in his car chasing down violent criminals (of which we only keep hearing about one's fate... what happened to the other(s)?).

(*sighs*)

----------


## specsaregood

> Stop being mean!  This man was in hot pursuit, and had no time to call this in.  Maybe he hit the button to call in but in his excitement he somehow fudged the motion and it didn't go through.  This was important, dammit!  He was in his car chasing down violent criminals (of which we only keep hearing about one's fate... what happened to the other(s)?).
> 
> (*sighs*)


Yes, and the officers that showed up later, didn't log any of it either.  I mean, they often overlook logging in calls where somebody is shot and killed.

It couldn't have anything to do with making it easier to change or get your story straight later....

----------


## Krugerrand

> How do you charge a dead guy with a crime? He sounds guilty as hell, but he is dead... 
> 
> At this point the revealed facts establish that the death would not of occured had the *thugish drunk not pounded on another man's door in the middle of the night*. 
> 
> From what I can tell, the homeowner should not face any legal sanctions whatsoever. We need to protect everyone's rights to defend themselves and their property, even if they have newborn babies.


John, again and in other posts above, you've gone back to dropping the dead man's claim to innocence until proven guilty.  Why?

To add insult in injury ... I remember reading that he had 2 beers.  Not you've got him drunk and intoxicated.

My guess: police officer wanted to teach him a lesson by beating him up.  He pick the wrong punk to beat up since he was a wrestler and was able to fight back.  The real thug pulled out a gun and shot him.  He knows that if he says he thought his life was threatened it would all go away.  EXCEPT - he should not have chased him down in the first place.  The only reason he possibly could have for that is to exact revenge.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> I don't dispute that ringing someone's doorbell in the middle of the night could be a civil matter, but it could also be a criminal matter, depending on the severity or the repetitiveness of the actions.
> 
> I am in favor of private property rights, something which apparently is completely foreign to you. This boorish tresspasser was violating the private property rights of a homeowner, who chased down the rights-abuser and caught him.


It's clearly civil and there is no gray area.  No property damaged, no one harmed.  You are stretching it big time even entertaining a possibility of crime.  The only criminal aspect of this story is intent of revenge which is amplified by the fact the home owner is a member of law enforcement who should damn well know the difference between criminal and civil.

In the interest of intellectual honesty and not completely discrediting yourself you should retract the comment I do not advocate private property rights.




> Recorded a deed? Yeah, I'd hope so, that's been the standard practice under the English Common-Law system we have for... oh I don't know, OVER A THOUSAND YEARS!!!!
> 
> Government's primary reason for existence is the defend private individual's title to their own property... that's why people record deeds, so their rights can be protected.


Recording a deed is not a requirement when purchasing property, nor does the act of recording a deed prevent title litigation, nor does the act of recording a deed guarantee property ownership.  The real underlying question with regards to a deed is who has the sovereignty to convey land?  Does a sovereign need a deed to convey something they own?  Who is the conveyor and what is received exactly?  Those questions are a thread in and of themselves but if we are going to discuss private property, the concepts of ownership and sovereignty are at the center of the discussion.




> "Did the cop"? You mean, "did the homeowner" right??? I have not criminalized anything, I've merely said that this ADULT MAN violated the private property rights of a homeowner. Using a weapon on such a tresspassor would have been just fine under our old common law system, but is impermissible today... but even by today's very very very conservative standard for using force to defend one's property, when someone is threatened, they have the right to use whatever force is necessary to protect themselves. 
> 
> A homeowner doesn't need a sign on their property to notify people that they shouldn't be disturbing people in the middle of the night!


Middle of the night is not an objective standard of ethics.  Some people work third shift and are up at night on their days off.  

Under common law trespass is wrongful conduct directly causing injury or loss.  Unauthorized entry is an assertion of modern law.  Was entry unauthorized?  How would a reasonable person know if there is no sign?  If my car breaks down at 1:00 am in front of your house am I trespassing for ringing your doorbell to ask if I may use your phone to call for help?

----------


## MelissaWV

> Under common law trespass is wrongful conduct directly causing injury or loss  unauthorized entry is an assertion of modern law.  Was entry unauthorized?  How would a reasonable person know if there is no sign?  If my car breaks down at 1:00 am in front of your house am I trespassing for ringing your doorbell to ask if I may use your phone to call for help?


I asked that earlier.  It was summarily dismissed as an inevitable hypothetical, and you would apparently be trespassing.  I agree that it would be trespassing if signs were posted, but in this case a passerby would have reason to believe they could knock on that door in particular for help.  After all, there's a policecar parked in the driveway.  In this case, though, the officer must have seen someone fleeing, took the time to grab their gun and keys and get into their car and follow the someone in question, and then "encountered" them on another person's property.

I am growing more and more curious as to what happened to the other people/person that the officer says were/was involved.

----------


## John Taylor

> I asked that earlier.  It was summarily dismissed as an inevitable hypothetical, and you would apparently be trespassing.  I agree that it would be trespassing if signs were posted, but in this case a passerby would have reason to believe they could knock on that door in particular for help.  After all, there's a policecar parked in the driveway.  In this case, though, the officer must have seen someone fleeing, took the time to grab their gun and keys and get into their car and follow the someone in question, and then "encountered" them on another person's property.
> 
> I am growing more and more curious as to what happened to the other people/person that the officer says were/was involved.


This case has nothing to do with any "officer", it only has to do with a homeowner, and someone who was tresspassing and violating his private property rights.

----------


## John Taylor

> John, again and in other posts above, you've gone back to dropping the dead man's claim to innocence until proven guilty.  Why?
> 
> To add insult in injury ... I remember reading that he had 2 beers.  Not you've got him drunk and intoxicated.
> 
> My guess: police officer wanted to teach him a lesson by beating him up.  He pick the wrong punk to beat up since he was a wrestler and was able to fight back.  The real thug pulled out a gun and shot him.  He knows that if he says he thought his life was threatened it would all go away.  EXCEPT - he should not have chased him down in the first place.  The only reason he possibly could have for that is to exact revenge.


We'll see what happens, won't we. 

A drunk man came and pounded on another man's door in the middle of the night. The homeowner chased him, caught him, a struggle ensued, and a man was killed. We don't know all the details yet, but we surely don't have ANY grounds to condemn the homeowner for defending his property, and potentially, his life.

----------


## John Taylor

> "Most Likely", sounds like even you have doubts.  There is definitely enough cause for a charge.  Let's face it, the cops have ruined their own credibility in the past.


Doubt of a man's innocence is NOT enough to charge a man with a crime and destroy his life. I doubt your innocence, but I don't advocate you being charged with murder.

----------


## Krugerrand

> We'll see what happens, won't we. 
> 
> A drunk man came and pounded on another man's door in the middle of the night. The homeowner chased him, caught him, a struggle ensued, and a man was killed. We don't know all the details yet, but we surely don't have ANY grounds to condemn the homeowner for defending his property, and potentially, his life.


You made up drunk.

The homeowner caught a man who *presumably* pounded on his door.

To be clear, he was not defending his property when the struggle ensued.

We do have grounds to question why the home owner created a situation that could lead to a struggle.

----------


## John Taylor

> It's clearly civil and there is no gray area.  No property damaged, no one harmed.  You are stretching it big time even entertaining a possibility of crime.  The only criminal aspect of this story is intent of revenge which is amplified by the fact the home owner is a member of law enforcement who should damn well know the difference between criminal and civil.
> 
> In the interest of intellectual honesty and not completely discrediting yourself you should retract the comment I do not advocate private property rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Recording a deed is not a requirement when purchasing property, nor does the act of recording a deed prevent title litigation, nor does the act of recording a deed guarantee property ownership.  The real underlying question with regards to a deed is who has the sovereignty to convey land?  Does a sovereign need a deed to convey something they own?  Who is the conveyor and what is received exactly?  Those questions are a thread in and of themselves but if we are going to discuss private property, the concepts of ownership and sovereignty are at the center of the discussion.
> 
> 
> ...



Your appraisal of property law is utterly mistaken. There are distinctions between civil and criminal tresspass.

Your support for people violating other free individuals private property rights, rights to free speech, and rights to voluntary association demonstrate far more than a simple condemnation from me that you are no friend of private property rights. I decline to retract anything. In fact, I should have added an exclaimation point!

Recording a deed is not required to purchase property, that is true, but if you don't want to lose it, you will. If someone doesn't record their deed, they can be evicted, they can be removed, and they can lose everything. In order to secure one's property rights, one must record one's deed. Period. 

At common law, violating someone's property rights at night was a FELONY and was punishable by death. Just sayin... 

Pounding on someone's door at midnight deprives the homeowner of the peaceful and quiet enjoyment of his property, which is one of the large sticks in the bundle which compose private property. This is a textbook definition of a violation of private property rights of the homeowner and his wife and infant by the drunk boor.

----------


## John Taylor

> You made up drunk.
> 
> The homeowner caught a man who *presumably* pounded on his door.
> 
> To be clear, he was not defending his property when the struggle ensued.
> 
> We do have grounds to question why the home owner created a situation that could lead to a struggle.


I did not make up drunk, the adult, who pounded on another man's door in the middle of the night, was, at least partially intoxicated. 

Witnesses and the man's friend have stated that this oaf is the malfeasor who pounded on the door. 

When the struggle ensued, the homeowner most emphatically WAS defending his private property rights. A man's most valuable and sacred property is his person. Period. 

The homeowner is the victim here. He was peacefully asleep in his own home, with his own child, and his own wife, when someone else came unto his property, pounded on the door, and caused a disturbance. The homeowner pursued to stop it. That's what happened here.

----------


## squarepusher

cops are thugs with guns, who routinely pick on/shoot children, elderly and the weak.
nothing more to this story really

----------


## specsaregood

> The homeowner pursued to stop it. That's what happened here.


Hadn't it already stopped?  The guy did run off.  How did he pursue to stop it?  Wouldn't the very act of having to pursue indicate that it had already stopped?

----------


## John Taylor

> cops are thugs with guns, who routinely pick on/shoot children, elderly and the weak.
> nothing more to this story really


Right. You wouldn't want to stop and treat people based on their individual merit... no, it'd be too difficult to judge an individual on the content of his character instead of the color of his uniform. 

This man is a homeowner who responded to a man violating his private property rights in the middle of the night. That's what happened here.

----------


## John Taylor

> Hadn't it already stopped?  The guy did run off.  How did her pursue to stop it?  Wouldn't the very act of having to pursue indicate that it had already stopped?


That's like saying you can't pursue someone who's raped you and run off... because now, there's no future threat. 

Hot pursuit. That's what happened here. The homeowner came out, and chased down the guys who have ADMITTED that they did this...

----------


## specsaregood

> That's like saying you can't pursue someone who's raped you and run off... because now, there's no future threat. 
> 
> Hot pursuit. That's what happened here. The homeowner came out, and chased down the guys who have ADMITTED that they did this...


Ah, so he didn't pursue to "stop it".  He pursued to apprehend, in violation of department guidelines as covered earlier in the thread.   Glad we got that cleared up.

----------


## John Taylor

> Ah, so he didn't pursue to "stop it".  He pursued to apprehend, in violation of department guidelines as covered earlier in the thread.   Glad we got that cleared up.


I'm not that homeowner, so I can't speak for him, but I would suspect that he pursued this malfactor to both stop him from violating his private property rights, from violating other people's private property rights, and to apprehend him. 

I couldn't care less that this homeowner violated some police procedure. In this context, he is a homeowner whose property is under assault by these thuggish guys.

----------


## specsaregood

> I couldn't care less that this homeowner violated some police procedure. In this context, he is a homeowner whose property is under assault by these thuggish guys.


You sure they are thuggish?  Sounds like an ordinary drunk young kid to me.  If he had a record, i'm sure they would have said somethign about it in the articles.

The thing is, you can't have it both ways.  You can't initiate force to "stop" something that has already stopped.  You can't say you are defending your self from the threat of imminent bodily harm, when you are the one pursuing the person. 

I understand wanting to defend the cop, but he did everything that would have gotten a regular homeowner charged with some form of murder.

You got any comments on the mysteriously missing call logs of the police?  Any thoughts on why a murder (justified or not) would not be logged in?

----------


## John Taylor

> You sure they are thuggish?  Sounds like an ordinary drunk young kid to me.  If he had a record, i'm sure they would have said somethign about it in the articles.
> 
> The thing is, you can't have it both ways.  You can't initiate force to "stop" something that has already stopped.  You can't say you are defending your self from the threat of imminent bodily harm, when you are the one pursuing the person. 
> 
> I understand wanting to defend the cop, but he did everything that would have gotten a regular homeowner charged with some form of murder.
> 
> You got any comments on the mysteriously missing call logs of the police?  Any thoughts on why a murder (justified or not) would not be logged in?


Yes, I am certain those adult men's behavior was thuggish. It was thuggish, and oafish, and remarkably stupid. This wasn't a drunk kid, this was a man, making a conscious decision to violate the rights of a family in the sanctity of their own home. 

No force was initiated by the homeowner. At least none that I can see from any of the reports... he simply chased down the guys who were violating his rights. The homeowner did not use force until his life was threatened (according to the information we have at our disposal today).

I don't like police, I don't like how they often act outside the confines of the law, and pretend they are the law, but this is not about a "cop", this is about a homeowner, defending himself from a threat to his life and ability to return home to the family he had left to protect. 

I'm very curious about the logs... I'd like to know precisely what happened!

----------


## specsaregood

> No force was initiated by the homeowner. At least none that I can see from any of the reports... he simply chased down the guys who were violating his rights. The homeowner did not use force until his life was threatened (according to the information we have at our disposal today).


Florida law considers drawing a gun on somebody use of lethal force, even if the gun is unloaded.  So yes, it sounds like he initiated force.  As an officer of the law, I would think he would know this.

----------


## John Taylor

> Florida law considers drawing a gun on somebody use of lethal force, even if the gun is unloaded.  So yes, it sounds like he initiated force.  As an officer of the law, I would think he would know this.


Well, you as "an officer of the law" should be able to give me the FRS number and section if that is the case. Have at is hoss, what's the Florida Revised Statute that says that someone can't use force to arrest a tresspasser?

----------


## dean.engelhardt

> cops are thugs with guns, who routinely pick on/shoot children, elderly and the weak.
> nothing more to this story really


I'm interested on your views about blacks and jewish people?

----------


## specsaregood

//

----------


## tremendoustie

Assuming the cop's account is correct ...

I'd say running after the guy was probably uncalled for, unless he had been "ding dong ditching" repeatedly. Once the guy goes for his gun, though (again, assuming that's really what he did), I think self defense is justified.

----------


## tmosley

> You do not have the right to shoot someone over a property dispute. The only person we KNOW was an aggressor here was the man who rang the doorbell. Lethal force can only be used when one is under a reasonable apprehension for one's physical safety.
> 
> 
> 
> The man did him harm, violated his private property rights, and threatened him with imminent harm. (at least we can't say that he didn't at this point--and innocent until proven guilty).
> 
> 
> 
> There is no evidence available at present to not believe the police officer here. The adult man shot was tresspassing, was violating the homeowner's rights, and did not stop when confronted by the police officer.
> ...


On what planet is ringing a doorbell, or knocking on the door a violation of property rights?  The definition of trespassing requires that the person on the property be asked to leave (No Trespassing signs count for this purpose).  You can not kill someone for trespassing when they are in the street.  It wasn't trespassing.

What kind of fascist am I?  Apparently I'm one that doesn't believe that you can chase down and tackle someone for ringing your doorbell.  Much less do so while armed, and then proceed to shoot them to death.

Please tell me where you live, because I don't want to ever be within a hundred miles of you, you crazy $#@!.

----------


## squarepusher

The main point here is the "cop" was not in control of the situation, which ended up with the death of a youth.  Our police officers, people who the public trusts with use of deadly force, should not have allowed this situation to have occurred in the first place.  What do you think you get when you go out chasing unknown persons in the middle of the night.

The police officer, putting himself in this situation where he was not in control, is in very poor form.  He apparently tackled the subject, what if the suspect had a knife?  Or another weapon? 

Obviously the officer knew he didn't, thats why he could safely tackle him.  This was simple a "revenge" killing on the part of the police officer for a doorbell ditcher.  The officer knew he could just say "omgwtfbbq suspect went for my gun" and kill the kid, and nothing come of it when his "cronies" review the case and find him innocent in 2 months, after his paid vacation to the Caribbean.

----------


## John Taylor

> I never claimed to be an officer of the law, but I can read.
> 
> I linked to this very early on in the thread, but here it is again, i'll even copy and paste it for you.
> http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/wea...f_defense.html


NONE OF THIS IS FLORIDA LAW! I am asking for the Florida Revised Statute dealing with the use of force to stop a crime.

----------


## John Taylor

> The main point here is the "cop" was not in control of the situation, which ended up with the death of a youth.  Our police officers, people who the public trusts with use of deadly force, should not have allowed this situation to have occurred in the first place.  What do you think you get when you go out chasing unknown persons in the middle of the night.
> 
> The police officer, putting himself in this situation where he was not in control, is in very poor form.  He apparently tackled the subject, what if the suspect had a knife?  Or another weapon? 
> 
> Obviously the officer knew he didn't, thats why he could safely tackle him.  This was simple a "revenge" killing on the part of the police officer for a doorbell ditcher.  The officer knew he could just say "omgwtfbbq suspect went for my gun" and kill the kid, and nothing come of it when his "cronies" review the case and find him innocent in 2 months, after his paid vacation to the Caribbean.


There's no "youth" here, there's a full grown man who was out drinking and who violated the property rights of another man. 

Chasing unknown persons? Well, they were breaking the law... anyone should and could have intervened to stop these oafs. 

How do you KNOW this was a "revenge killing"? We have absolutely nothing to prove that. We do KNOW that this oafish man pounded on somone elses home in the middle of the night...

----------


## John Taylor

> I never claimed to be an officer of the law, but I can read.
> 
> I linked to this very early on in the thread, but here it is again, i'll even copy and paste it for you.
> http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/wea...f_defense.html


Even taking this extra-legal "legal advice" into account, the fact is, no force was used by the homeowner during the chase, nor until, according to someone whose rights were in fact violated by this drunken man, a lethal threat posed itself.

----------


## John Taylor

> On what planet is ringing a doorbell, or knocking on the door a violation of property rights?  The definition of trespassing requires that the person on the property be asked to leave (No Trespassing signs count for this purpose).  You can not kill someone for trespassing when they are in the street.  It wasn't trespassing.
> 
> What kind of fascist am I?  Apparently I'm one that doesn't believe that you can chase down and tackle someone for ringing your doorbell.  Much less do so while armed, and then proceed to shoot them to death.
> 
> Please tell me where you live, because I don't want to ever be within a hundred miles of you, you crazy $#@!.


No one was killed for a trespass. 

The boorish oaf of a man was killed because he placed the homeowner in a reasonable fear for his life. 

Homeowners have the right to quietly and peacefully enjoy their property without the disturbance of malfactors like this besodden individual. I'm sorry you don't believe in the sanctity of private property.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Your appraisal of property law is utterly mistaken. There are distinctions between civil and criminal tresspass.


Whatever....  This forum is not onion and based on bull$#@! whimsical statements, they are based in fact.  Post some factual rebuttal to back your assertions up.




> Florida statute, sec. 810.08 - Trespass in structure or conveyance
> 
>   (1) *Whoever, without being authorized, licensed, or invited*, willfully enters or remains in any structure or conveyance, or, having been authorized, licensed, or invited, is warned by the owner or lessee of the premises, or by a person authorized by the owner or lessee, to depart and refuses to do so, commits the offense of trespass in a structure or conveyance.
> 
>   (2)
>       (a) Except as otherwise provided in this subsection, trespass in a structure or conveyance is a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in sec. 775.082 or sec. 775.083.
> 
>       (b) If there is a human being in the structure or conveyance at the time the offender trespassed, attempted to trespass, or was in the structure or conveyance, the trespass in a structure or conveyance is a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in sec. 775.082 or sec. 775.083.
> 
> ...





> *Handbook of Florida Fence and Property Law: Visitors and Responsibilities to Visitors*
> 
> *What are the types of people that might enter my property?*
> 
> The legal duties owed by a landowner to a person entering his property depend upon the classification of the person who enters the property. Florida law classifies such people into three types. The first type, invitees, includes any individual who is invited onto the landowner's property or is led to believe that an invitation was given. The second type, licensees, enters upon the owner's property without invitation but with the assent of the owner for the individual's own convenience, pleasure, or benefit. The third type, trespassers, enters upon the property of another without an invitation, license, or other right to enter the property (see Lukancich v. Tampa, 583 So. 2d 1070 [2d DCA 1991]; 41 Fla. Jur 2d Premises Liability sections 10, 53, and 60).
> 
> *Who is an invitee?*
> 
> *Invitees include those individuals on the owner's property because they have been led to believe, either by direct invitation by the owner or other circumstances, that the owner's property is open for their use.* Invitation occurs when the property is open to members of the public or the individual enters the property for a business dealing with the owner of the property. Individuals in this category may include business customers, visitors to public places such as museums or historic homes, and employees (see Post v. Lunney, 261 So. 2d 146 [1972]; 41 Fla. Jur 2d Premises Liability section 16). A property owner also owes the same duty of care to anyone invited onto the property for social reasons (see Wood v. Camp, 284 So. 2d 691 [1973]). In addition, Florida Statute section 112.182 classifies a firefighter or law enforcement officer who enters a property to discharge a duty as an invitee.
> ...


You already agreed it was civil.  I said you we're stretching it big time to even assert criminal.  How about posting the elements of criminal trespass to back up your bull$#@! criminal assertions. 

Now I completely discredited your bull$#@! about the sign and notice based on Florida law which is where this occurred.  If you have a rebuttal make it factual.




> Your support for people violating other free individuals private property rights, rights to free speech, and rights to voluntary association demonstrate far more than a simple condemnation from me that you are no friend of private property rights. I decline to retract anything. In fact, I should have added an exclaimation point!


You just make yourself look like an even bigger ass.




> Recording a deed is not required to purchase property, that is true,


No $#@! it's true because one of us presents facts.




> but if you don't want to lose it, you will. If someone doesn't record their deed, they can be evicted, they can be removed, and they can lose everything. In order to secure one's property rights, one must record one's deed. Period.


Now you are back in the world of speculative bull$#@!.  Bring facts or citations.




> At common law, violating someone's property rights at night was a FELONY and was punishable by death. Just sayin...


I already rebutted you bull$#@! assertions of common law and indicated under common law trespass included damage or loss.  Obviously trespass as defined under common law is a crime.

Back up your death penalty assertion with a citation.




> Pounding on someone's door at midnight deprives the homeowner of the peaceful and quiet enjoyment of his property, which is one of the large sticks in the bundle which compose private property. This is a textbook definition of a violation of private property rights of the homeowner and his wife and infant by the drunk boor.


If it's textbook you should have no problem with some citations to refute the above.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

Notice the statue I posted says structure.  That is because criminal trespass is pretty much considered a subset of burglary with intent to commit a crime.

Here is the right section:



> 810.09  Trespass on property other than structure or conveyance.--
> 
> (1)(a)  A person who, without being authorized, licensed, or invited, willfully enters upon or remains in any property other than a structure or conveyance:
> 
> 1.  As to which notice against entering or remaining is given, either by actual communication to the offender or by posting, fencing, or cultivation as described in s. 810.011; or
> 
> 2.  If the property is the unenclosed curtilage of a dwelling and the offender enters or remains with the intent to commit an offense thereon, other than the offense of trespass,
> 
> commits the offense of trespass on property other than a structure or conveyance.
> ...

----------


## Danke

A census worker rang my doorbell the other day.  Woke me up from a nap.  By the time I got my pants on and answered the door, he was across the street about to ring my neighbor's doorbell.  I shot him.

----------


## specsaregood

> NONE OF THIS IS FLORIDA LAW! I am asking for the Florida Revised Statute dealing with the use of force to stop a crime.


Lets be intellectually honest here.  That is an official FL govt site explaining the laws for using a gun in the state in plain english.   I think it is clear the guy did not abide by the law.  If you want to refute the statements on that govt site, then go get the statutes yourself and refute them.   Judging by what the commissioner for licensing concealed carry has to say, if this guy was an ordinary citizen/homeowner he'd be going to jail And judging by your response --nonrefutation of the many violations the guy committed -- I can only assume you agree.

----------


## Philmanoman

> A census worker rang my doorbell the other day.  Woke me up from a nap.  By the time I got my pants on and answered the door, he was across the street about to ring my neighbor's doorbell.  I shot him.


Heheh...I was just about to post something similar to this.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

This is the only other statue that could apply:




> 810.12  Unauthorized entry on land; prima facie evidence of trespass.--
> 
> (1)  The unauthorized entry by any person into or upon any enclosed and posted land shall be prima facie evidence of the intention of such person to commit an act of trespass.
> 
> (2)  The act of entry upon enclosed and posted land without permission of the owner of said land by any worker, servant, employee, or agent while actually engaged in the performance of his or her work or duties incident to such employment and while under the supervision or direction, or through the procurement, of any other person acting as supervisor, foreman, employer, or principal, or in any other capacity, shall be prima facie evidence of the causing, and of the procurement, of such act by the supervisor, foreman, employer, principal, or other person.
> 
> (3)  The act committed by any person or persons of taking, transporting, operating, or driving, or the act of permitting or consenting to the taking or transporting of, any machine, tool, motor vehicle, or draft animal into or upon any enclosed and posted land without the permission of the owner of said land by any person who is not the owner of such machine, tool, vehicle, or animal, but with the knowledge or consent of the owner of such machine, tool, vehicle, or animal, or of the person then having the right to possession thereof, shall be prima facie evidence of the intent of such owner of such machine, tool, vehicle, or animal, or of the person then entitled to the possession thereof, to cause or procure an act of trespass.
> 
> (4)  As used herein, the term "owner of said land" shall include the beneficial owner, lessee, occupant, or other person having any interest in said land under and by virtue of which that person is entitled to possession thereof, and shall also include the agents or authorized employees of such owner.
> ...


And those two statues could only apply under this definition:




> (5)(a)  "Posted land" is that land upon which signs are placed not more than 500 feet apart along, and at each corner of, the boundaries of the land, upon which signs there appears prominently, in letters of not less than 2 inches in height, the words "no trespassing" and in addition thereto the name of the owner, lessee, or occupant of said land. Said signs shall be placed along the boundary line of posted land in a manner and in such position as to be clearly noticeable from outside the boundary line.
> 
> (b)  It shall not be necessary to give notice by posting on any enclosed land or place not exceeding 5 acres in area on which there is a dwelling house in order to obtain the benefits of ss. 810.09 and 810.12 pertaining to trespass on enclosed lands.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

Then we got this SCOTUS Ruling:




> MARTIN v. STRUTHERS, 319 U.S. 141 (1943) 
> 
>  For centuries it has been a common practice in this and other countries for persons not specifically invited to go from home to home and knock on doors or ring doorbells to communicate ideas to the occupants or to invite them to political, religious, or other kinds of public meetings. Whether such visiting shall be permitted has in general been deemed to depend upon the will of the individual master of each household, and not upon the determination of the community. In the instant case, the City of Struthers, Ohio, has attempted to make this decision for all its inhabitants. The question to be decided is whether the City, consistently with the federal Con- [319 U.S. 141, 142]    stitution's guarantee of free speech and press, possesses this power. 1  
> 
> The appellant, espousing a religious cause in which she was interested-that of the Jehovah's Witnesses-went to the homes of strangers, knocking on doors and ringing doorbells in order to distribute to the inmates of the homes leaflets advertising a religious meeting. In doing so, she proceeded in a conventional and orderly fashion. For delivering a leaflet to the inmate of a home she was convicted in the Mayor's Court and was fined $10.00 on a charge of violating the following City ordinance:
> 
>       'It is unlawful for any person distributing handbills, circulars or other advertisements to ring the door bell, sound the door knocker, or otherwise summon the inmate or inmates of any residence to the door for the purpose of receiving such handbills, circulars or other advertisements they or any person with them may be distributing.' 
> 
> The appellant admitted knocking at the door for the purpose of delivering the invitation, but seasonably urged in the lower Ohio state court that the ordinance as construed and applied was beyond the power of the State because in violation of the right of freedom of press and religion as guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. 2   [319 U.S. 141, 143]   The right of freedom of speech and press has broad scope. The authors of the First Amendment knew that novel and unconventional ideas might disturb the complacent, but they chose to encourage a freedom which they believed essential if vigorous enlightenment was ever to triumph over slothful ignorance. 3 This freedom embraces the right to distribute literature, Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 452 , 58 S.Ct. 666, 669, and necessarily protects the right to receive it. The privilege may not be withdrawn even if it creates the minor nuisance for a community of cleaning litter from its streets. Schneider v. State, 308 U.S. 147, 162 , 60 S.Ct. 146, 151. Yet the peace, good order, and comfort of the community may imperatively require regulation of the time, place and manner of distribution. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 304 , 60 S. Ct. 900, 903, 128 A.L.R. 1352. No one supposes, for example, that a city need permit a man with a communicable disease to distribute leaflets on the street or to homes, or that the First Amendment prohibits a state from preventing the distribution of leaflets in a church against the will of the church authorities.
> ...

----------


## John Taylor

> Lets be intellectually honest here.  That is an official FL govt site explaining the laws for using a gun in the state in plain english.   I think it is clear the guy did not abide by the law.  If you want to refute the statements on that govt site, then go get the statutes yourself and refute them.   Judging by what the commissioner for licensing concealed carry has to say, if this guy was an ordinary citizen/homeowner he'd be going to jail And judging by your response --nonrefutation of the many violations the guy committed -- I can only assume you agree.


Let's be intellectually honest. The site you posted is not the law in Florida, it's some counsel's interpretation of the law. I'm asking you for the law. 

It is clear to me that this homeowner did abide by the law, he did not use any weapon in defense of his property, but only used it when he believed his life to be in danger. 

Don't ever try to represent yourself in court, you'll get crucified.

----------


## specsaregood

> Don't ever try to represent yourself in court, you'll get crucified.


You neither, I don't think you could win in court by claiming that you were pursuing somebody off your property to stop them from banging on your door.

----------


## John Taylor

> Then we got this SCOTUS Ruling:


Then we have the *FACT* that we don't have a federal common law, but rather, a state-specific common law. 

Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins

In diversity cases, federal courts must apply state law as declared by the highest state court in addition to state statutory law. There is no federal general common law. Congress has no power to declare substantive rules of common law applicable in a State and the Constitution does not confer such a power upon the federal courts.

----------


## John Taylor

> You neither, I don't think you could win in court by claiming that you were pursuing somebody off your property to stop them from banging on your door.


No, he was chasing them to ensure that they would stop violating his private property rights, and that they wouldn't continue on their wanton path of violating other people's rights as well.

----------


## John Taylor

> Then we got this SCOTUS Ruling:



Title XLVI
CRIMES Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE View Entire Chapter 

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. 

(2)  The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if: 

(a)  The person against whom the defensive force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder, and there is not an injunction for protection from domestic violence or a written pretrial supervision order of no contact against that person; or 

(b)  The person or persons sought to be removed is a child or grandchild, or is otherwise in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of, the person against whom the defensive force is used; or 

(c)  The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or 

(d)  The person against whom the defensive force is used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer. 

(3)  A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. 

(4)  A person who unlawfully and by force enters or attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence. 

(5)  As used in this section, the term: 

(a)  "Dwelling" means a building or conveyance of any kind, including any attached porch, whether the building or conveyance is temporary or permanent, mobile or immobile, which has a roof over it, including a tent, and is designed to be occupied by people lodging therein at night. 

(b)  "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest. 

(c)  "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property. 

History.--s. 1, ch. 2005-27.

Title XLVI
CRIMES Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE View Entire Chapter 

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. 

History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102; s. 2, ch. 2005-27.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Then we have the *FACT* that we don't have a federal common law, but rather, a state-specific common law. 
> 
> Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins
> 
> In diversity cases, federal courts must apply state law as declared by the highest state court in addition to state statutory law. There is no federal general common law. Congress has no power to declare substantive rules of common law applicable in a State and the Constitution does not confer such a power upon the federal courts.


Be sure to apply that opinion to an eminent domain defense and let us know how it works out.  I posted the state law and asked you what are the elements of criminal trespass in Florida?

How about refuting this Florida case:




> REGINALD L. SMITH,
> 
> Appellant,
> 
> v.
> 
> STATE OF FLORIDA,
> 
> Appellee.
> ...


Refute that or drop the trespass bull$#@!.  Criminal intent to retaliate is the matter at hand.

----------


## John Taylor

> Be sure to apply that opinion to an eminent domain defense and let us know how it works out.  I posted the state law and asked you what are the elements of criminal trespass in Florida?
> 
> How about refuting this Florida case:
> 
> 
> 
> Refute that or drop the trespass bull$#@!.  Criminal intent to retaliate is the matter at hand.


This case doesn't apply, the facts distinguish it.

----------


## John Taylor

> Be sure to apply that opinion to an eminent domain defense and let us know how it works out.  I posted the state law and asked you what are the elements of criminal trespass in Florida?
> 
> How about refuting this Florida case:
> 
> 
> 
> Refute that or drop the trespass bull$#@!.  Criminal intent to retaliate is the matter at hand.


Criminal intent to retaliate? Where do you dream up this crap? 

The intoxicated man was without a doubt violating the private property rights of the homeowner.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> This case doesn't apply, the facts distinguish it.


The elements of trespass are clearly articulated by Florida courts.

----------


## MelissaWV

I'm still waiting to hear what became of the other dangerous thugs involved.  Surely, since one of them was so terrible that he had to be pursued at that moment, the other must be under severe lock and key.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Criminal intent to retaliate? Where do you dream up this crap?


I did not dream it up.  A vigilante home owner grabbed a gun, pursued an individual over a civil matter, with intent to confront the individual.

----------


## John Taylor

> Be sure to apply that opinion to an eminent domain defense and let us know how it works out.  I posted the state law and asked you what are the elements of criminal trespass in Florida?
> 
> How about refuting this Florida case:
> 
> 
> 
> Refute that or drop the trespass bull$#@!.  Criminal intent to retaliate is the matter at hand.


Your case states in part, quoting the statutory law and then the opinion of the court:




> 1) wilfully entering upon or remaining in any property; 2) other than a structure or a conveyance; 3) without being authorized, licensed or invited; 4) where notice against entering or remaining is given either by actual communication to the offender or by posting, fencing or cultivation.
> 
> To determine if Smith committed trespass in the officers' presence, we focus on the last two elements of the crime: whether Smith was on the property without being invited and whether he had notice against entering or remaining. The convenience store was privately owned, but operated for monetary gain and open to the public. In Corn v. State, 332 So. 2d 4, 8 (Fla. 1976), the court characterized such property as "quasi-public" and noted that "in a sense an invitation is extended to the public to shop. . . . " Thus, it would appear that Smith had been impliedly invited on the property, and that the third element of the crime was not satisfied.


This case deals with quasi-public property, not the home, the bastion of private property rights. A man's house is his castle, and not even the king may enter unbidden... 

Remember that?

----------


## John Taylor

> The elements of trespass are clearly articulated by Florida courts.


Yes, they are, and you are completely wrong.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Your case states in part, quoting the statutory law and then the opinion of the court:
> 
> 
> 
> This case deals with quasi-public property, not the home, the bastion of private property rights. A man's house is his castle, and not even the king may enter unbidden... 
> 
> Remember that?


Obviously you can't read




> A law enforcement officer may not make a warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor, such as this trespass, unless every element of the crime is committed in his presence. See � 901.15(1), Fla. Stat. (1997); Carter v. State, 516 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). In A.L. v. State, 675 So. 2d 703, 704 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), the court listed four elements that must be satisfied to establish the crime of trespass under section 810.09, Florida Statutes:
> 
> 1) wilfully entering upon or remaining in any property; 2) other than a structure or a conveyance; 3) without being authorized, licensed or invited; 4) where notice against entering or remaining is given either by actual communication to the offender or by posting, fencing or cultivation.

----------


## John Taylor

> I did not dream it up.  A vigilante home owner grabbed a gun, pursued an individual over a civil matter, with intent to confront the individual.


A homeowner ran outside to protect his wife and newborn, and to stop a drunken man from pounding on his home. He pursued the man, caught him, and held him for the police. The man attempted to seize the homeowner's weapon, and was killed in lawful self-defense.

----------


## John Taylor

> Obviously you can't read


Obviously you can't comprehend: 




> A law enforcement officer may not make a warrantless arrest for a misdemeanor, such as this trespass, unless every element of the crime is committed in his presence. See � 901.15(1), Fla. Stat. (1997); Carter v. State, 516 So. 2d 312 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987). In A.L. v. State, 675 So. 2d 703, 704 (Fla. 3d DCA 1996), the court listed four elements that must be satisfied to establish the crime of trespass under section 810.09, Florida Statutes:
> 
> 1) wilfully entering upon or remaining in any property; 2) other than a structure or a conveyance; 3) without being authorized, licensed or invited; 4) where notice against entering or remaining is given either by actual communication to the offender or by posting, fencing or cultivation.


This was a homeowner making a warrantless arrest, based on probable cause and the commission of a crime in his physicial presence.

----------


## John Taylor

> I'm still waiting to hear what became of the other dangerous thugs involved.  Surely, since one of them was so terrible that he had to be pursued at that moment, the other must be under severe lock and key.


Perhaps, but then again, perhaps the other lout didn't threaten to kill anyone.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> A homeowner ran outside to protect his wife and newborn, and to stop a drunken man from pounding on his home. He pursued the man, caught him, and held him for the police. The man attempted to seize the homeowner's weapon, and was killed in lawful self-defense.


Sure he did




> Verdoni, 33, told his superiors that his doorbell was rung around midnight Thursday, and then he heard banging on his door around 1 a.m. He said he chased down one prankster in his squad car and found him outside a home in the 300 block of Lisbon Street. There he encountered Spann and told him to lay down while he called for backup.

----------


## John Taylor

> Sure he did


Exactly! You found it.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Obviously you can't comprehend: 
> 
> 
> 
> This was a homeowner making a warrantless arrest, based on probable cause and the commission of a crime in his physicial presence.


you need to back that $#@! up because I am not doing your homework on what constitutes a citizen arrest or whether a law enforcement officer not in uniform is not a law enforcement officer.  You are fundamentally changing your bull$#@! and you will not be able to back that assertion up with citations.

----------


## John Taylor

> Sure he did


The homeowner caught the guy who was harrassing him and his wife and newborn, held him for the police, and called the police.

----------


## John Taylor

> you need to back that $#@! up because I am not doing your homework on what constitutes a citizen arrest or whether a law enforcement officer not in uniform is not a law enforcement officer.  You are fundamentally changing your bull$#@! and you will not be able to back that assertion up with citations.


How much law do you want? I'll drown you in it. You want a hundred Florida cases on justifiable homicide? 

You're fundamentally full of $#@!.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Exactly! You found it.


Chasing a person down with a squad car making an arrest without a warrant does not fit the description you paint.

----------


## Fr3shjive

> A homeowner ran outside to protect his wife and newborn, and to stop a drunken man from pounding on his home.


Give me a break. If the guy was genuinely concerned with the safety of his family he would have stayed with his wife and newborn baby and protected them rather than chasing down some pranksters who he already knew were fleeing.




> He pursued the man, caught him, and held him for the police. The man attempted to seize the homeowner's weapon, and was killed in lawful self-defense.


This is all speculation based off of the shooters account. For all we know he could have gone after the prankster with intent to "teach him a lesson", the pranksters got the better of the cop and the cop ended up shooting him.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Obviously you can't comprehend: 
> 
> 
> 
> This was a homeowner making a warrantless arrest, based on probable cause and the commission of a crime in his physicial presence.


The guy was standing outside and witnessed the man he eventually shot ringing his doorbell?  That's some psychic stuff. 

As for the other lout not threatening anyone, that's irrelevant.  I'm sure he's under arrest and facing very serious charges, the sort of charge that would justify pursuit by someone in a motor vehicle at night and immediate detainment.  This was serious endangerment and damage to property that happened.  The doorbell will never be the same.

I think you are stuck on the part where the officer defended himself.  Yes, that was called-for.  If we ignore the entire part where the homeowner/officer drives after the people in question (though you say it's hot pursuit; I'm not entirely convinced of that, since he would have had to go in and get his keys and get dressed, and then get in his car... did he ever lose sight of the suspects?), then the shooting is perfectly justified.  Of course, the homeowner provided the access to the weapon in question as a component of that pursuit.  He endangered himself and others, and thusfar there's no record of a call for backup (or, in the case of a regular citizen, a call to 9-1-1).  

I still maintain my opinion that a citizen chasing down a drunken 20-year-old at 1am in a residential area with a loaded weapon for the crime of ringing the doorbell at the wrong hour, then shooting that person after an ensuing scuffle... would not be viewed very favorably.  Hopefully we'll never know, because no one is THAT stupid... are they?

----------


## John Taylor

> Chasing a person down with a squad car making an arrest without a warrant does not fit the description you paint.


You don't need a warrant to arrest someone if you have probable cause. That was present because the intoxicated oaf harassed this homeowner and his family in the homeowner's physical presence.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> How much law do you want? I'll drown you in it. You want a hundred Florida cases on justifiable homicide? 
> 
> You're fundamentally full of $#@!.


You better start drowning because your justifiable homicide is sunk without being able to prove any elements of trespass and a law enforcement officer attempting to affect an arrest without a warrant over a civil matter.

----------


## specsaregood

> Let's be intellectually honest. The site you posted is not the law in Florida, it's some counsel's interpretation of the law. I'm asking you for the law.


Well clearly it is the state's position/interpretation of "the law".  And it is up to the state to bring charges.   So going by their own posted interpretation, charges should be brought against the homeowner.   Either that, or they need to update their site.

----------


## MelissaWV

> You don't need a warrant to arrest someone if you have probable cause. That was present because the intoxicated oaf harassed this homeowner and his family in the homeowner's physical presence.


Why do you keep saying that?  Did I miss the part where the homeowner was outside watching for people ringing his doorbell?

----------


## John Taylor

> Give me a break. If the guy was genuinely concerned with the safety of his family he would have stayed with his wife and newborn baby and protected them rather than chasing down some pranksters who he already knew were fleeing.


Pranksters? These were adult men, harassing another adult man at home in the sanctity of his bedroom, sleeping beside his wife. Talk about a classic violation of another man's private property rights. I don't know if this could be any more clear cut. 




> This is all speculation based off of the shooters account. For all we know he could have gone after the prankster with intent to "teach him a lesson", the pranksters got the better of the cop and the cop ended up shooting him.


This is not all speculation off the homeowner's account. Everything except the details of the shooting are confirmed by the oaf's friend and fellow imbecile. The forensics won't lie, and when they come out, we'll see if this homeowner really did fire in self-defense. 
*
This isn't a case of "prankster v. cop", it's a case of "drunken lout pounding on door v. homeowner at home asleep."*

----------


## John Taylor

> Why do you keep saying that?  Did I miss the part where the homeowner was outside watching for people ringing his doorbell?


He was physicially there. How do you think he chased the man down?

----------


## John Taylor

> Well clearly it is the state's position/interpretation of "the law".  And it is up to the state to bring charges.   So going by their own posted interpretation, charges should be brought against the homeowner.   Either that, or they need to update their site.


No, it's not clearly the "state's position/interpretation" of "the law", it is the interpretation of one political subdivision of the state of florida's interpretation, and it just so happens, that it doesn't even concern this particular issue, of justificable homicide.

----------


## John Taylor

> You better start drowning because your justifiable homicide is sunk without being able to prove any elements of trespass and a law enforcement officer attempting to affect an arrest without a warrant over a civil matter.


If you think law enforcement need warrants to effect arrests, you haven't read the U.S. Constitution. Probable cause is all that is constitutionally required.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> No, it's not clearly the "state's position/interpretation" of "the law", it is the interpretation of one political subdivision of the state of florida's interpretation, and it just so happens, that it doesn't even regard this particular issue, of justificable homicide.


Either it was an act of retaliatory vigilante aggression over a civil matter because you have not proven the elements of trespass or a law enforcement officer murdered someone while illegally effecting a warrantless arrest.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> If you think law enforcement need warrants to effect arrests, you haven't read the U.S. Constitution. Probable cause is all that is constitutionally required.


Say what... didn't you just make the argument federal jurisdiction does not apply a few posts back?

Which is it you are waffling....

----------


## John Taylor

> Either it was an act of retaliatory vigilante aggression over a civil matter because you have not proven the elements of trespass or a law enforcement officer murdered someone while illegally affecting a warrantless arrest.


Vigilante aggression? It was defense of one's private property rights which led the homeowner to stop the malfactor, and it was the reasonable apprehension of imminent harm which led the homeowner to kill the initial aggressor.

----------


## specsaregood

> No, it's not clearly the "state's position/interpretation" of "the law", it is the interpretation of one political subdivision of the state of florida's interpretation, and it just so happens, that it doesn't even concern this particular issue, of justificable homicide.


I haven't seen where you refuted that interpretation.

----------


## John Taylor

> Say what... didn't you just make the argument federal jurisdiction does not apply a few posts back?
> 
> Which is it you are waffling....


You threw out a case talking about federal criminal law, and I responded by telling you that under the Erie Doctrine and the U.S. Constitution, there is no FEDERAL COMMON LAW. That doesn't mean that the 4th Amendment and 5th Amendment doesn't apply in. It does, under the incorporation doctrine of the 14th Amendment. 

You need to get your facts straight.

----------


## John Taylor

> I haven't seen where you refuted that interpretation.


I quoted the entire Florida Revised Statute regarding the use of force to defend property, and the statute regarding use of force to defend one's person. 

Fail.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> I haven't seen where you refuted that interpretation.


John hasn't refuted $#@! with regards of the criminal elements or made any relevant citations or statutory interpretation. 17 pages of opinion.

----------


## MelissaWV

> He was physicially there. How do you think he chased the man down?


The citation earlier was about physical presence and witnessing all aspects of the crime.  You responded that this was done in his physical presence.  Now he was asleep.

How did he know these people were the ones that rang the doorbell?  Moreover, one of them must have been merely a witness.  How did he know he just didn't stumble across some drunk 20-year-old in someone's yard?  None of that's been answered, but you're name-calling and convicting the guy.  He "chased the man down" by getting his gun, getting some shoes on, getting his keys, getting into his vehicle, and driving around.  That's what I'm trying to tell you.  I don't see how he could have A) witnessed the crime, B) kept consistent sight of the suspect(s), and C) been considered in hot pursuit when neither of the prior two conditions are satisfied.

Maybe these people had done this before, and that's why he suspected them in particular, or why he suspected some mischief at all?  That would be a good piece of the puzzle, and easily substantiated by prior mentions to co-workers or reports to the police.  Maybe he has a window from which he could see them running off, and his porch/yard is extraordinarily well-lit?  That would explain a great deal of it, though he still would have lost sight of them and had to "catch up" in his vehicle.  

I'm puzzled as to why these missing pieces don't bother you one bit, and why it doesn't make you at all nervous that someone could decide, if they suspect you of mischief, to attempt to detain you and get into a scuffle with you.  Keep the weapon entirely out of it for a moment.  How did the homeowner know these were the people that did it, and how were they to know he was actually a police officer (and not just, say, some crazy with a gun out at 1am)?  The whole situation stinks and could have been avoided so easily, but I guess the homeowner in this case deserves a medal instead.   

This thread's taken enough of my time, though, and it's obvious to me and most people looking at this (and the statutes, and opinions of statutes, and reports, and everything else) that Officer Homeowner could have avoided the situation, and that there's a good chance he was acting on emotion/adrenaline, which isn't excused just because he has a badge.  I guess driving off at 1am in pursuit of a supposed danger to society was supposed to be comforting to his wife and infant, and if that oaf had a gun of his own or had succeeded in wresting the weapon and shooting the officer, I'm sure his widow would have taken comfort in his rushing out to stop anyone else's doorbell from getting buzzed.

I'd rather concentrate on Liberty Forest Grassroots type stuff for the rest of the night, though you're likely going to continue to spin yourself out and continue to assert your infallible, absolute correctness in this case.  

I hope you get a hug today. 

G'night.

----------


## John Taylor

> Either it was an act of retaliatory vigilante aggression over a civil matter because you have not proven the elements of trespass or a law enforcement officer murdered someone while illegally effecting a warrantless arrest.


Why do you think that a person can only be arrested if the person arresting them has a warrant? 

Perhaps you haven't read the 4th Amendment recently...


*The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.*

When the Fourth Amendment was adopted, warrantless arrests were allowed in public when there was a breach of the peace or a felony had been committed. That is still the case today. This case involves a classic example of a breach of the peace on the part of the drunken lout.

----------


## John Taylor

> Title XLVI
> CRIMES Chapter 776
> JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE View Entire Chapter 
> 
> 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 
> ...


Perhaps you missed this Live_Free_Without_Private_Property_Rights.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Why do you think that a person can only be arrested if the person arresting them has a warrant? 
> 
> Perhaps you haven't read the 4th Amendment recently...
> 
> 
> *The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.*
> 
> When the Fourth Amendment was adopted, warrantless arrests were allowed in public when there was a breach of the peace or a felony had been committed. That is still the case today. This case involves a classic example of a breach of the peace on the part of the drunken lout.


So let me get this straight.  For the first 17 pages you are criminalizing for trespass and telling me I don't know what the hell I am talking about with regards to property rights and now you are shifting gears to criminalizing for breach of the peace?

I understand why you must criminalize because you have no justifiable homicide without criminalization.  But let's be clear on the charge.  What is the criminal charge under Florida Law exactly Tanner oops, err Taylor?

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Perhaps you missed this Live_Free_Without_Private_Property_Rights.


No I didn't miss it.  None of of it applies.  Which section exactly are you applying?

----------


## John Taylor

> The citation earlier was about physical presence and witnessing all aspects of the crime.  You responded that this was done in his physical presence.  Now he was asleep.
> 
> How did he know these people were the ones that rang the doorbell?  Moreover, one of them must have been merely a witness.  How did he know he just didn't stumble across some drunk 20-year-old in someone's yard?  None of that's been answered, but you're name-calling and convicting the guy.  He "chased the man down" by getting his gun, getting some shoes on, getting his keys, getting into his vehicle, and driving around.  That's what I'm trying to tell you.  I don't see how he could have A) witnessed the crime, B) kept consistent sight of the suspect(s), and C) been considered in hot pursuit when neither of the prior two conditions are satisfied.
> 
> Maybe these people had done this before, and that's why he suspected them in particular, or why he suspected some mischief at all?  That would be a good piece of the puzzle, and easily substantiated by prior mentions to co-workers or reports to the police.  Maybe he has a window from which he could see them running off, and his porch/yard is extraordinarily well-lit?  That would explain a great deal of it, though he still would have lost sight of them and had to "catch up" in his vehicle.  
> 
> I'm puzzled as to why these missing pieces don't bother you one bit, and why it doesn't make you at all nervous that someone could decide, if they suspect you of mischief, to attempt to detain you and get into a scuffle with you.  Keep the weapon entirely out of it for a moment.  How did the homeowner know these were the people that did it, and how were they to know he was actually a police officer (and not just, say, some crazy with a gun out at 1am)?  The whole situation stinks and could have been avoided so easily, but I guess the homeowner in this case deserves a medal instead.   
> 
> This thread's taken enough of my time, though, and it's obvious to me and most people looking at this (and the statutes, and opinions of statutes, and reports, and everything else) that Officer Homeowner could have avoided the situation, and that there's a good chance he was acting on emotion/adrenaline, which isn't excused just because he has a badge.  I guess driving off at 1am in pursuit of a supposed danger to society was supposed to be comforting to his wife and infant, and if that oaf had a gun of his own or had succeeded in wresting the weapon and shooting the officer, I'm sure his widow would have taken comfort in his rushing out to stop anyone else's doorbell from getting buzzed.
> ...


The people on this thread have been saying this homeowner should be *CHARGED WITH MURDER.* 
I have consistently said that we don't yet know all the facts and that we should be charging a quite possibly innocent man with murder. 

We do know that: 

The homeowner's private property rights were violated. 

The homeowner caught the man who disturbed the peace, tresspassed, and violated the quiet enjoyment of the property in the middle of the night. 

The lawbreaker died. 

Now, we need to get the forensic evidence before I'm going to agree with you lynching maniacs about this homeowner's *guilt.*  

A man's house is his castle. 

You guys should brush up on your committment to private property rights.

----------


## John Taylor

> No I didn't miss it.  None of of it applies.  Which section exactly are you applying?


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: 

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. 

776.012 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

----------


## John Taylor

> So let me get this straight.  For the first 17 pages you are criminalizing for trespass and telling me I don't know what the hell I am talking about with regards to property rights and now you are shifting gears to criminalizing for breach of the peace?
> 
> I understand why you must criminalize because you have no justifiable homicide without criminalization.  But let's be clear on the charge.  What is the criminal charge under Florida Law exactly Tanner oops, err Taylor?


The drunk man who was shot by the homeowner was breaching the peace, was trespassing, and was harrassing and was quite possibly threatening the homeowner's family. None of that has anything to do with him being shot however: rather, the drunken lout was shot because he placed the homeowner in a reasonable apprehension for his physicial safety.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> 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: 
> 
> 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. 
> 
> 776.012 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


It is not defensive once you leave your property and I can't even believe you would try to make a claim it's defensive when it occurred blocks away.  I can make a personal case citation where an officer arrested and charged me with child abuse for chasing down some teenage vandals damaging my property I caught red handed after pulling into my driveway.  Hell yes, these hypocrites should be charged with murder.  He left his property and initiated aggression.  I demand equal application of the law.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> The drunk man who was shot by the homeowner was breaching the peace, was trespassing, and was harrassing and was quite possibly threatening the homeowner's family. None of that has anything to do with him being shot however: rather, the drunken lout was shot because he placed the homeowner in a reasonable apprehension for his physicial safety.


Ok what are the elements for breaching the peace?  The elements of trespass have been clearly established and are not met.

----------


## John Taylor

> It is not defensive once you leave your property and I can't even believe you would try to make a claim it's defensive when it occurred blocks away.  I can make a personal case citation where an officer arrested and charged me with child abuse for chasing down some teenage vandals damaging my property I caught red handed after pulling into my driveway.  Hell yes, these hypocrites should be charged with murder.  He left his property and initiated aggression.  I demand equal application of the law.


It can be defensive even if the defensive action is not taken on one's property. Perhaps you again missed the relevent textual portions of the Florida 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* 

I don't think you should have been charged, based on the information you just revealed, and I also don't think that this homeowner should be screwed over, merely because you were. Instead of asking that everyone be screwed to the extent you were, why not support the application of justice for all, including this homeowner???

----------


## John Taylor

> Ok what are the elements for breaching the peace?  The elements of trespass have been clearly established and are not met.


The elements of trespass are met. You cited a case dealing with public accomodations, in which a business open to the public was described. That is far from being a single residence home in the middle of the night. 

Again, I'll leave it up to you to actually go to the statutes and pull up the one regarding breach of the peace.

----------


## Philmanoman

Could the cop pick the suspect out in a line-up.To be sure the right perp was captured.How is he sure that he even got the right guy?

 I really dont see how this is a justified a killing.The suspect was no longer a threat.The cop should probably use the advice that most of them would tell one of us...call the police.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> It can be defensive even if the defensive action is not taken on one's property. Perhaps you again missed the relevent textual portions of the Florida 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* 
> 
> I don't think you should have been charged, based on the information you just revealed, and I also don't think that this homeowner should be screwed over, merely because you were. Instead of asking that everyone be screwed to the extent you were, why not support the application of justice for all, including this homeowner???


There were no threats of violence.  Someone running away or who has vacated the property is prima facie evidence there is not threat.  There is no way you can apply a defensive standard to this because I am pretty familiar with the state of Florida's view on it based on personal experience.

And I wasn't just charged.  I was charged, arrested, and incarcerated.  Since the home owner in question is a member of the state law enforcement club that wanted to persecute me I absolutely want to see equal application of the law.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> The elements of trespass are met. You cited a case dealing with public accomodations, in which a business open to the public was described. That is far from being a single residence home in the middle of the night. 
> 
> Again, I'll leave it up to you to actually go to the statutes and pull up the one regarding breach of the peace.


You don't have a case for breach of the peace unless you can cite it.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> The elements of trespass are met.


The elements that must be proven for a criminal statue are fixed.  The case was a court of appeal that not only cited the elements but elaborated on them.  The four elements have not been met.

----------


## John Taylor

> The elements that must be proven for a criminal statue are fixed.  The case was a court of appeal that not only cited the elements but elaborated on them.  The four elements have not been met.


You're wrong, I quoted the passage of the court decision YOU posted which stated that it concerned QUASI-PUBLIC PROPRTY, like a convenience store. 

That is a FAR FAR cry from a private home, which is afforded the highest form of privacy protections available by law.

----------


## John Taylor

> You don't have a case for breach of the peace unless you can cite it.


Here's trespass, because you apparently have the research capacity of a 1st grader. 

Title XLVI
CRIMES Chapter 810
BURGLARY AND TRESPASS View Entire Chapter 

810.09  Trespass on property other than structure or conveyance.-- 

(1)(a)  A person who, without being authorized, licensed, or invited, willfully enters upon or remains in any property other than a structure or conveyance: 

1.  As to which notice against entering or remaining is given, either by actual communication to the offender or by posting, fencing, or cultivation as described in s. 810.011; or 

2.  If the property is the unenclosed curtilage of a dwelling and the offender enters or remains with the intent to commit an offense thereon, other than the offense of trespass, 

commits the offense of trespass on property other than a structure or conveyance. 

(b)  As used in this section, the term "unenclosed curtilage" means the unenclosed land or grounds, and any outbuildings, that are directly and intimately adjacent to and connected with the dwelling and necessary, convenient, and habitually used in connection with that dwelling. 

(2)(a)  Except as provided in this subsection, trespass on property other than a structure or conveyance is a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. 

(b)  If the offender defies an order to leave, personally communicated to the offender by the owner of the premises or by an authorized person, or if the offender willfully opens any door, fence, or gate or does any act that exposes animals, crops, or other property to waste, destruction, or freedom; unlawfully dumps litter on property; or trespasses on property other than a structure or conveyance, the offender commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. 

(c)  If the offender is armed with a firearm or other dangerous weapon during the commission of the offense of trespass on property other than a structure or conveyance, he or she is guilty of a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. Any owner or person authorized by the owner may, for prosecution purposes, take into custody and detain, in a reasonable manner, for a reasonable length of time, any person when he or she reasonably believes that a violation of this paragraph has been or is being committed, and that the person to be taken into custody and detained has committed or is committing the violation. If a person is taken into custody, a law enforcement officer shall be called as soon as is practicable after the person has been taken into custody. The taking into custody and detention in compliance with the requirements of this paragraph does not result in criminal or civil liability for false arrest, false imprisonment, or unlawful detention. 

(d)  The offender commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, if the property trespassed is a construction site that is: 

1.  Greater than 1 acre in area and is legally posted and identified in substantially the following manner: "THIS AREA IS A DESIGNATED CONSTRUCTION SITE, AND ANYONE WHO TRESPASSES ON THIS PROPERTY COMMITS A FELONY."; or 

2.  One acre or less in area and is identified as such with a sign that appears prominently, in letters of not less than 2 inches in height, and reads in substantially the following manner: "THIS AREA IS A DESIGNATED CONSTRUCTION SITE, AND ANYONE WHO TRESPASSES ON THIS PROPERTY COMMITS A FELONY." The sign shall be placed at the location on the property where the permits for construction are located. For construction sites of 1 acre or less as provided in this subparagraph, it shall not be necessary to give notice by posting as defined in s. 810.011(5). 

(e)  The offender commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, if the property trespassed upon is commercial horticulture property and the property is legally posted and identified in substantially the following manner: "THIS AREA IS DESIGNATED COMMERCIAL PROPERTY FOR HORTICULTURE PRODUCTS, AND ANYONE WHO TRESPASSES ON THIS PROPERTY COMMITS A FELONY." 

(f)  The offender commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, if the property trespassed upon is an agricultural site for testing or research purposes that is legally posted and identified in substantially the following manner: "THIS AREA IS A DESIGNATED AGRICULTURAL SITE FOR TESTING OR RESEARCH PURPOSES, AND ANYONE WHO TRESPASSES ON THIS PROPERTY COMMITS A FELONY." 

(g)  The offender commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, if the property trespassed upon is a domestic violence center certified under s. 39.905 which is legally posted and identified in substantially the following manner: "THIS AREA IS A DESIGNATED RESTRICTED SITE AND ANYONE WHO TRESPASSES ON THIS PROPERTY COMMITS A FELONY." 

(h)  Any person who in taking or attempting to take any animal described in s. 379.101(19) or (20), or in killing, attempting to kill, or endangering any animal described in s. 585.01(13) knowingly propels or causes to be propelled any potentially lethal projectile over or across private land without authorization commits trespass, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. For purposes of this paragraph, the term "potentially lethal projectile" includes any projectile launched from any firearm, bow, crossbow, or similar tensile device. This section does not apply to any governmental agent or employee acting within the scope of his or her official duties. 

(i)  The offender commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084, if the property trespassed upon is an agricultural chemicals manufacturing facility that is legally posted and identified in substantially the following manner: "THIS AREA IS A DESIGNATED AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS MANUFACTURING FACILITY, AND ANYONE WHO TRESPASSES ON THIS PROPERTY COMMITS A FELONY." 

(3)  As used in this section, the term "authorized person" or "person authorized" means any owner, his or her agent, or a community association authorized as an agent for the owner, or any law enforcement officer whose department has received written authorization from the owner, his or her agent, or a community association authorized as an agent for the owner, to communicate an order to leave the property in the case of a threat to public safety or welfare. 

History.--s. 35, ch. 74-383; s. 22, ch. 75-298; s. 3, ch. 76-46; s. 2, ch. 80-389; s. 34, ch. 88-381; s. 186, ch. 91-224; s. 2, ch. 94-263; s. 2, ch. 94-307; s. 48, ch. 96-388; s. 1818, ch. 97-102; s. 3, ch. 97-201; s. 5, ch. 2000-369; s. 2, ch. 2001-182; s. 47, ch. 2001-279; s. 36, ch. 2002-46; s. 14, ch. 2006-289; s. 1, ch. 2006-295; s. 2, ch. 2007-123; s. 205, ch. 2008-247.

----------


## John Taylor

> The elements that must be proven for a criminal statue are fixed.  The case was a court of appeal that not only cited the elements but elaborated on them.  The four elements have not been met.


775.01  Common law of England.--The common law of England in relation to crimes, except so far as the same relates to the modes and degrees of punishment, shall be of full force in this state where there is no existing provision by statute on the subject.

CRIMES Chapter 775
DEFINITIONS; GENERAL PENALTIES; REGISTRATION OF CRIMINALS View Entire Chapter 

775.051  Voluntary intoxication; not a defense; evidence not admissible for certain purposes; exception.--Voluntary intoxication resulting from the consumption, injection, or other use of alcohol or other controlled substance as described in chapter 893 is not a defense to any offense proscribed by law. Evidence of a defendant's voluntary intoxication is not admissible to show that the defendant lacked the specific intent to commit an offense and is not admissible to show that the defendant was insane at the time of the offense, except when the consumption, injection, or use of a controlled substance under chapter 893 was pursuant to a lawful prescription issued to the defendant by a practitioner as defined in s. 893.02.

856.011  Disorderly intoxication.-- 

(1)  No person in the state shall be intoxicated and endanger the safety of another person or property, and no person in the state shall be intoxicated or drink any alcoholic beverage in a public place or in or upon any public conveyance and cause a public disturbance. 

(2)  Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. 

(3)  Any person who shall have been convicted or have forfeited collateral under the provisions of subsection (1) three times in the preceding 12 months shall be deemed a habitual offender and may be committed by the court to an appropriate treatment resource for a period of not more than 60 days. Any peace officer, in lieu of incarcerating an intoxicated person for violation of subsection (1), may take or send the intoxicated person to her or his home or to a public or private health facility, and the law enforcement officer may take reasonable measures to ascertain the commercial transportation used for such purposes is paid for by such person in advance. Any law enforcement officers so acting shall be considered as carrying out their official duty. 


856.021  Loitering or prowling; penalty.-- 

(1)  It is unlawful for any person to loiter or prowl in a place, at a time or in a manner not usual for law-abiding individuals, under circumstances that warrant a justifiable and reasonable alarm or immediate concern for the safety of persons or property in the vicinity. 

(2)  Among the circumstances which may be considered in determining whether such alarm or immediate concern is warranted is the fact that the person takes flight upon appearance of a law enforcement officer, refuses to identify himself or herself, or manifestly endeavors to conceal himself or herself or any object. Unless flight by the person or other circumstance makes it impracticable, a law enforcement officer shall, prior to any arrest for an offense under this section, afford the person an opportunity to dispel any alarm or immediate concern which would otherwise be warranted by requesting the person to identify himself or herself and explain his or her presence and conduct. No person shall be convicted of an offense under this section if the law enforcement officer did not comply with this procedure or if it appears at trial that the explanation given by the person is true and, if believed by the officer at the time, would have dispelled the alarm or immediate concern. 

(3)  Any person violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. 


_856.031  Arrest without warrant.--Any sheriff, police officer, or other law enforcement officer may arrest any suspected loiterer or prowler without a warrant in case delay in procuring one would probably enable such suspected loiterer or prowler to escape arrest._

----------


## Philmanoman

Im definitely no lawyer,but shouldnt the accused have a right to face his accuser in trial.Was he such a threat at the time someone had to travel to the suspects location and dispose of him?How far did he drive?Did he apprehend the right suspect?Those would be some questions I have.

 First thing I thought was "damn,dude must be paranoid".

----------


## John Taylor

> Im definitely no lawyer,but shouldnt the accused have a right to face his accuser in trial.Was he such a threat at the time someone had to travel to the suspects location and dispose of him?How far did he drive?Did he apprehend the right suspect?Those would be some questions I have.
> 
>  First thing I thought was "damn,dude must be paranoid".


There was no accused here, there was one man who violated another man's private property rights, got caught, then was shot. 

The only question is whether the shooting was justifiable or not... 

He was a threat according to the homeowner... forensics will have to sort it out, just like it would in the case of any other person.

Grown men don't ring other men's doors at midnight... not cool. This "prank" was a crime.

----------


## Philmanoman

It doesnt matter if he got the right guy?

----------


## John Taylor

> It doesnt matter if he got the right guy?


The other drunken man who was there identified this guy as being the one who pounded on the homeowner's door. 

I'm not sure what you mean by "got" in any case... by got, do you mean apprehended, or shot? The two incidents are distinct.

----------


## Philmanoman

> The other drunken man who was there identified this guy as being the one who pounded on the homeowner's door. 
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean by "got" in any case... by got, do you mean apprehended, or shot? The two incidents are distinct.


Yea,apprehended.What happened to innocent until proven guilty?


edit:missed the drunken men witnesses...sounds like possible not so reliable witnesses though.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> You're wrong, I quoted the passage of the court decision YOU posted which stated that it concerned QUASI-PUBLIC PROPRTY, like a convenience store. 
> 
> That is a FAR FAR cry from a private home, which is afforded the highest form of privacy protections available by law.


I am not wrong until you make a citation refuting the elements of trespass.  You have not done that yet.  The statues have already been posted.  We haven't even addressed duty of care yet.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

13.3 TRESPASS  IN STRUCTURE OR CONVEYANCE
§ 810.08, Fla.Stat.

	To prove the crime of Trespass in a [Structure] [Conveyance], the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1.	(Defendant)

[willfully [entered] [remained in] (structure or conveyance alleged)].

[having been [authorized] [licensed] [invited] to [enter] [remain in] the (structure or conveyance alleged), willfully refused to depart after having been warned by [owner] [lessee] [(person authorized by the owner or lessee alleged)] to depart].

2.	The (structure or conveyance alleged) was in the lawful possession of (person alleged).

3.	(Defendant's) [entering] [remaining in] the property was without the permission, express or implied, of (person alleged) or any other person authorized to give that permission.

	Authority to [enter] [remain in] a structure or conveyance need not be given in express words. It may be implied from the circumstances. It is lawful to [enter] [remain in] a structure or conveyance of another if, under all the circumstances, a reasonable person would believe that [he] [she] had the permission of the owner or occupant.

	Definitions
	"Willfully" means intentionally and purposely.

	§*810.011(1), Fla.Stat. Give if applicable.
	"Structure" means any building of any kind, either temporary or permanent, that has a roof over it, and the enclosed space of ground and outbuildings immediately surrounding that structure.

	§*810.011(3), Fla.Stat. Give if applicable.
	"Conveyance" means any motor vehicle, ship, vessel, railroad car, trailer, aircraft, or sleeping car; and to enter a conveyance includes taking apart any portion of the conveyance.

	Enhanced penalty. Give if applicable.
	The punishment provided by law for the crime of trespass in a [structure] [conveyance] is greater if the trespass is committed under certain aggravating circumstances. Therefore, if you find the defendant guilty of trespass in a [structure] [conveyance], you must then consider whether the State has further proved those circumstances.

	While armed.
If you find that during the trespass the defendant was armed or armed [himself] [herself] with a firearm or other dangerous weapon, you should find [him] [her] guilty of trespass in a [structure] [conveyance] while armed.




Human being in structure or conveyance.
If you find that at the time of the trespass there was a human being in the [structure] [conveyance], you should find [him] [her] guilty of trespass in a [structure] [conveyance] with a human being in the [structure] [conveyance].

	With no aggravating circumstances.
	If you find that the defendant committed the trespass in a [structure] [conveyance] without any aggravating circumstances, you should find [him] [her] guilty only of trespass in a [structure] [conveyance].

	§ 790.001(6), Fla.Stat. Give if applicable.
	A "firearm" is legally defined as (adapt from § 790.001, Fla.Stat., as required by the allegations).

	A "dangerous weapon" is any weapon that, taking into account the manner in which it is used, is likely to produce death or great bodily harm.

----------


## John Taylor

> I am not wrong until you make a citation refuting the elements of trespass.  You have not done that yet.  The statues have already been posted.  We haven't even addressed duty of care yet.


Duty of care only applies in TORT law, not in criminal law... sorry.

Furthermore, you are only listing trespass within a building.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> If you know the law, and you stay within it in a situation like this, you're going to be just fine. 
> 
> *If anyone else had done this and hadn't been charged, none of you would have a problem, but because it's a police officer, you have blinder's on.* 
> 
> I'm saying that EVERYONE should have the protections of self-defense, and should be able to protect themselves and their property without being charged with crimes.


Speak for yourself. I would and have called it "over the top", I've specifically spoken up about similar situations involving a citizen and not a cop, as it tends to paint gun owners in a bad, "rabid dog" kind of light.

And again this has nothing to do with defending property, if it was was he'd be guilty, open and shut, no questions asked, you cannot use deadly force in any case where the threat has ceased to exist.

This all revolves around an imminent threat to the cop by way the suspect taking his firearm from him.

That's the claim, and I think it's shaky myself.

----------


## tmosley

> No one was killed for a trespass. 
> 
> The boorish oaf of a man was killed because he placed the homeowner in a reasonable fear for his life. 
> 
> Homeowners have the right to quietly and peacefully enjoy their property without the disturbance of malfactors like this besodden individual. I'm sorry you don't believe in the sanctity of private property.


You know what?  You're a damn disgrace.

Tell me again where you live.  I don't want to go within a hundred miles of you, for fear that I will be murdered in the street for giving you a nasty look, or making a noise that violates your "property rights".

A $#@!ing ringing doorbell is not a threat on someones life.  No crime was committed by this man.  Can you get that through your thick skull?

In fact, someone needs to post god-damn warning signs around your property.  I wonder how many children you have "rightfully killed in defense of your life" for daring to step foot on your property in pursuit of an errant ball?  Hell, better hunt down and kill the parents too, just to be safe.

You $#@!ing maniac.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Duty of care only applies in TORT law, not in criminal law... sorry.


Relevant in a civil case.




> Furthermore, you are only listing trespass within a building.


Yup, just waiting for you to rebut the elements of trespass that have not been met which you seem unable to post.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

13.4 TRESPASS  ON PROPERTY OTHER THAN A STRUCTURE OR CONVEYANCE
§ 810.09, Fla.Stat.

	To prove the crime of Trespass on Property other than a Structure or Conveyance, the State must prove the following four elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1.	(Defendant) willfully [entered] [remained in] (property alleged).

2.	The property was [owned by] [in the lawful possession of] (person alleged).

3.	Notice not to [enter upon] [remain in] that property had been given by:

[actual communication to the defendant].

[[posting] [fencing] [cultivation] of the property].

4.	(Defendant's) [entering] [remaining in] the property was without the permission, express or implied, of (person alleged) or any other person authorized to give that permission.

	Authority to [enter] [remain in] property need not be given in express words. It may be implied from the circumstances. It is lawful to [enter] [remain in] the property of another if, under all the circumstances, a reasonable person would believe that [he] [she] had the permission of the owner or occupant.

	Definitions
	"Willfully" means intentionally and purposely.

	§ 810.011(5)(a), Fla.Stat. Give if applicable.
	The phrase "posted land" is legally defined as land upon which signs are placed not more than 500 feet apart along and at each corner of the property's boundaries. The signs themselves must prominently state, in letters not less than two inches high, the words "No Trespassing." The signs also must state, with smaller letters being acceptable, the name of the owner or lessee or occupant of the land. The signs must be placed so as to be clearly noticeable from outside the boundary lines and corners of the property. If the property is less than five acres in area, and a dwelling house is located on it, it should be treated as posted land even though no signs have been erected.

	§ 810.011(6), Fla.Stat. Give if applicable.
	The phrase "cultivated land" is legally defined as land that has been cleared of its natural vegetation, and at the time of the trespass was planted with trees, a crop, an orchard or a grove, or was a pasture. Fallow land, left that way as part of a crop rotation, would also be "cultivated land."

	§ 810.011(7), Fla.Stat. Give if applicable.
	The phrase "fenced land" is legally defined as land that has been enclosed by a fence of substantial construction. The fence may be made from rails, logs, posts and railings, iron, steel, barbed wire or other wire or material. The fence must stand at least three feet high. If a part of the boundary of a piece of property is formed by water, that part should be treated as legally fenced land.



	Give if applicable.
	When every part of property is either posted or cultivated or fenced, the entire property is considered as enclosed and posted land.

	Enhanced penalty. Give if applicable.
	The punishment provided by law for trespass on property other than a structure or conveyance is greater if the defendant was armed with a firearm or other dangerous weapon. Therefore, if you find the defendant guilty of trespass on property other than a structure or conveyance and you further find that the defendant was armed with a firearm or other dangerous weapon during the trespass, you should find [him] [her] guilty of trespass on property other than a structure or conveyance while armed.

	With no firearm or dangerous weapon.
If you find that the defendant carried no firearm or other dangerous weapon but did commit the trespass, you should find [him] [her] guilty only of trespass on property other than a structure or conveyance.

	§ 790.001(6), Fla.Stat. Give if applicable.
	A "firearm" is legally defined as (adapt from § 790.001, Fla.Stat., as required by the allegations).

	A "dangerous weapon" is any weapon that, taking into account the manner in which it is used, is likely to produce death or great bodily harm.

----------


## bkreigh

ding dong ditch?  We called this something else when i was in elementary school.

----------


## Ninja Homer

Gotta love cops.  In what other occupation can you kill people that piss you off, and then get rewarded with a few weeks of paid vacation while your coworkers get to work on clearing your name for you?

----------


## Krugerrand

John,

Why did you go back to referring to this guy as intoxicated and drunk?  The only evidence I found was that he was a a bar and had two drinks.  Did you see a toxicology report that I missed?

Also,  you keep referring to this as a case of a home owner and a lawbreaker.  If this occurred on the home owner's property - or even anywhere NEAR it, I might agree.  The moment he went into a SQUAD CAR to chase him down across the NEIGHBORHOOD, this was between a cop and an accused lawbreaker.

Problem #1 that was against policy as cited above.

Problem #2 what happened to the support call-in records?  They mysteriously vanished.  This is consistent with police brutality cases.

So, while according to the shooter's story, this could be a self-defense case - because of the breech of policy and the missing records, there is strong reason to believe this was a retaliation case with a cop "creating" a story that would get him off without charges.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> John,
> 
> Why did you go back to referring to this guy as intoxicated and drunk?  The only evidence I found was that he was a a bar and had two drinks.  Did you see a toxicology report that I missed?
> 
> Also,  you keep referring to this as a case of a home owner and a lawbreaker.  If this occurred on the home owner's property - or even anywhere NEAR it, I might agree.  The moment he went into a SQUAD CAR to chase him down across the NEIGHBORHOOD, this was between a cop and an accused lawbreaker.
> 
> Problem #1 that was against policy as cited above.
> 
> Problem #2 what happened to the support call-in records?  They mysteriously vanished.  This is consistent with police brutality cases.
> ...


+1

----------


## MikeStanart

> John,
> 
> Why did you go back to referring to this guy as intoxicated and drunk?  The only evidence I found was that he was a a bar and had two drinks.  Did you see a toxicology report that I missed?
> 
> Also,  you keep referring to this as a case of a home owner and a lawbreaker.  If this occurred on the home owner's property - or even anywhere NEAR it, I might agree.  The moment he went into a SQUAD CAR to chase him down across the NEIGHBORHOOD, this was between a cop and an accused lawbreaker.
> 
> Problem #1 that was against policy as cited above.
> 
> Problem #2 what happened to the support call-in records?  They mysteriously vanished.  This is consistent with police brutality cases.
> ...


+1 More than likely this is the case.

----------


## John Taylor

> +1 More than likely this is the case.


There's no evidence whatsoever that the homeowner did anything illegal. He defended his property, and quite possibly his own life. When there is a shred, a shred of evidence, other than your distaste for police, which indicates that "murder" was done, post it. Unitl then, don't lynch a quite possibly innocent man.

----------


## John Taylor

> You know what?  You're a damn disgrace.
> 
> Tell me again where you live.  I don't want to go within a hundred miles of you, for fear that I will be murdered in the street for giving you a nasty look, or making a noise that violates your "property rights".
> 
> A $#@!ing ringing doorbell is not a threat on someones life.  No crime was committed by this man.  Can you get that through your thick skull?
> 
> In fact, someone needs to post god-damn warning signs around your property.  I wonder how many children you have "rightfully killed in defense of your life" for daring to step foot on your property in pursuit of an errant ball?  Hell, better hunt down and kill the parents too, just to be safe.
> 
> You $#@!ing maniac.


You're a disgusting example of the leftist worldview that rejects the notion of self-ownership and private property rights. Just like the anarchist-punks at G8 summits, you go around advocating the destruction of private property and the harming of people merely because they happen to be police. Instead of rejecting the non-aggression principle, you ought to support the defense of one's property and person from all unjust aggression.

----------


## John Taylor

> John,
> 
> Why did you go back to referring to this guy as intoxicated and drunk?  The only evidence I found was that he was a a bar and had two drinks.  Did you see a toxicology report that I missed?
> 
> Also,  you keep referring to this as a case of a home owner and a lawbreaker.  If this occurred on the home owner's property - or even anywhere NEAR it, I might agree.  The moment he went into a SQUAD CAR to chase him down across the NEIGHBORHOOD, this was between a cop and an accused lawbreaker.
> 
> Problem #1 that was against policy as cited above.
> 
> Problem #2 what happened to the support call-in records?  They mysteriously vanished.  This is consistent with police brutality cases.
> ...


This guy pounded on another man's door in the middle of the night, while intoxicated, and then ran from the homeowner who stopped him a few feet down the street from his home. When the homeowner stopped this oaf, he called the police. Only after this was there any violence... and the origins of that violence are contested. We don't know what happened precisely after that, but that will come out in the medical examiner's report, the ballistics reports, and the police reports. Wait until the evidence comes out before advocating a lynching.

----------


## MikeStanart

> A census worker rang my doorbell the other day.  Woke me up from a nap.  By the time I got my pants on and answered the door, he was across the street about to ring my neighbor's doorbell.  I shot him.


Hahah.  Thank you for pointing out the absurdity of this argument.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Originally Posted by Danke  View Post
> A census worker rang my doorbell the other day. Woke me up from a nap. By the time I got my pants on and answered the door, he was across the street about to ring my neighbor's doorbell. I shot him.
> 			
> 		
> 
> Hahah.  Thank you for pointing out the absurdity of this argument.


I missed that somehow.

+1 for the lulz and qft

----------


## tmosley

> This guy pounded on another man's door in the middle of the night, while intoxicated, and then ran from the homeowner who stopped him a few feet down the street from his home. When the homeowner stopped this oaf, he called the police. Only after this was there any violence... and the origins of that violence are contested. We don't know what happened precisely after that, but that will come out in the medical examiner's report, the ballistics reports, and the police reports. Wait until the evidence comes out before advocating a lynching.


lol, did you even read the story?  He chased him down in a $#@!ing squad car, you moron.  It most certainly was not "a few feet down the street", unless you meant "a few THOUSAND feet".

Seriously, I'm waiting on that address, or at least what town you live in.  I want to rent a blimp to warn people away from you, as you are a raging psychopath.  If you shoot it down, you're going to be the one who has to pay for it, though.  Maybe I should get a plane to write it in the sky, Wizard of Oz style.

----------


## dean.engelhardt

> This guy pounded on another man's door in the middle of the night, while intoxicated, and then ran from the homeowner who stopped him a few feet down the street from his home. When the homeowner stopped this oaf, he called the police. Only after this was there any violence... and the origins of that violence are contested. We don't know what happened precisely after that, but that will come out in the medical examiner's report, the ballistics reports, and the police reports. Wait until the evidence comes out before advocating a lynching.


Dude, maybe it is time to agree to disagree.

----------


## RyanRSheets

> This strikes me as aggression in the form of biological warfare.  Not only does it have the potential to do literally thousands of dollars worth of damage, but it could spread potentially lethal disease.  I do not find this even the least remote bit funny.  In fact, I'd go so far as to question the principles of anybody who _did_ find it funny.


I don't think the prank was funny, and I think the person who did it should be facing criminal charges, but I can't help but laugh at the tone of the guy's voice when he opens that door.  Something about capturing real anger on video or audio makes me laugh, so maybe I'm a sick person.  He was almost as angry as this guy:

YouTube - Angry BT Customer: DO YOU COMPREHEND ? (VERY Funny!)

----------


## tmosley

> You're a disgusting example of the leftist worldview that rejects the notion of self-ownership and private property rights. Just like the anarchist-punks at G8 summits, you go around advocating the destruction of private property and the harming of people merely because they happen to be police. Instead of rejecting the non-aggression principle, you ought to support the defense of one's property and person from all unjust aggression.


Since you don't seem to understand anything about the world around you, I present you with this:

*RINGING A DOORBELL IS NOT AGGRESSION, YOU DUMB $#@!.*

----------


## John Taylor

> lol, did you even read the story?  He chased him down in a $#@!ing squad car, you moron.  It most certainly was not "a few feet down the street", unless you meant "a few THOUSAND feet".
> 
> Seriously, I'm waiting on that address, or at least what town you live in.  I want to rent a blimp to warn people away from you, as you are a raging psychopath.  If you shoot it down, you're going to be the one who has to pay for it, though.  Maybe I should get a plane to write it in the sky, Wizard of Oz style.


The homeowner might as well have chased the man down in a tractor. The vehicle used to chase the guy doesn't matter whatsoever. 

Where do you get a "few THOUSAND feet" from any of the articles? How far can a man run in a few seconds? 

I'm sorry you do not have a committment to the preservation of private property rights. Under traditional common-law, this intoxicated trespassor could legally be killed. We have a a very very conservative standard now in terms of defending one's property, but in any event, we are not discussing using force to protect the sanctity of one's home int he middle of the night, we are discussing using force to defend one's self against a threat of iminent harm.

You should look up "right to quiet enjoyment" and cross search "private property rights", and you might change you mind about lynching a homeowner standing up for himself and his newborn baby.

----------


## John Taylor

> I missed that somehow.
> 
> +1 for the lulz and qft


I've never, NEVER argued that a person should ever be shot for ringing a doorbell. You guys are being intellectually dishonest to assert that. All I am saying is that as a homeowner, this man had the right to stop the other man from pounding on his door in the middle of the night. 

The use of force to do this, while completely justifiable under the old common law of the early Republic and of England before it, was not justified under our present laws here. However, we're not talking about shooting someone for knocking on a door, we're talking about shooting someone when one is under a reasonable apprehension for their physicial safety.

All that is debatable here is whether a reasonable person in the homeowner's position would have felt threatened by this intoxicated man's actions. If so, (and the investigation will determine this), then no charges should be brought. If not, then this homeowner should be charged with murder.

----------


## John Taylor

> since you don't seem to understand anything about the world around you, i present you with this:
> 
> *ringing a doorbell is not aggression, you dumb $#@!.*


*pounding on someone's door in the middle of the night, being on their property uninvited and with the intent to disturb, disrupt, harass, and deprive a property owner of the quiet enjoyment of their property. . .* *is aggression.* 

Without the right to quiet and peaceful enjoyment and use of one's property, there is no property right. This is a classic definition of a property rights violation.

----------


## RyanRSheets

> Since you don't seem to understand anything about the world around you, I present you with this:
> 
> *RINGING A DOORBELL IS NOT AGGRESSION, YOU DUMB $#@!.*


Waking someone in the middle of the night with a doorbell is rude and disruptive.  I'd say it qualifies as aggression, although it is absolutely wrong for someone to be shot over it.  Since the officer was allegedly attacked, though, the shooting is allegedly justified.

----------


## specsaregood

//

----------


## John Taylor

> I could be a half mile away by the time you got out of bed, put on your clothes, got your gun, grabbed your keys, started your car and started chasing me down..


Who says this guy put on clothes, and why would this homeowner be so slow? Perhaps he had a gun and keys next to his bed. He could be up and out the door in ten seconds flat. You must be one hell of a drunk runner to make it half a mile in 10 seconds. 




> You are the one being intellectually dishonest.  If the guy banged on the door and ran away, then he had already stopped.   Him pursuing him had nothing to do with stopping him.  Of course you already know this.


So if a rapist commits a rape, and finishes, then walks away, the woman has no legal right to pursue the guy, even if he's right there in plain sight? Nonsense. 

The homeowner had a reasonable suspicion to believe these men would continue their harrassment of other people, and perhaps him as well... This was a case of hot pursuit.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I've never, NEVER argued that a person should ever be shot for ringing a doorbell. You guys are being intellectually dishonest to assert that. All I am saying is that as a homeowner, this man had the right to stop the other man from pounding on his door in the middle of the night.


The other man *had* stopped, he left the scene, the threat was gone.

In no state does the law allow lethal force to be used against someone who is no longer a threat.

----------


## JeNNiF00F00

> Since you don't seem to understand anything about the world around you, I present you with this:
> 
> *RINGING A DOORBELL IS NOT AGGRESSION, YOU DUMB $#@!.*


hahahahaaaaaa Don't feed the troll.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> So if a rapist commits a rape, and finishes, then walks away, the woman has no legal right to pursue the guy, even if he's right there in plain sight? Nonsense.


She can pursue, and so can cops, and they can arrest.

She cannot, under the law, chase after him and gun him down.

----------


## John Taylor

> The other man *had* stopped, he left the scene, the threat was gone.
> 
> In no state does the law allow lethal force to be used against someone who is no longer a threat.


You are correct in your analysis of the use of lethal force in Florida. I am not saying anyone should be shot for "threatening to knock on a door". That's not why this shooting took place, but rather, because, after the homeowner caught the aggressor, the homeowner felt threatened, and shot the aggressor. Now, whether this shooting was in fact one a reasonable person in the same situation would have done is a question to be determined when all the evidence is known, but we shouldn't support lynching a homeowner who quite likely was just doing what any one of us would have done in that situation.

----------


## specsaregood

//

----------


## John Taylor

> She can pursue, and so can cops, and they can arrest.


Precisely, and that is all this homeowner did here. 




> She cannot, under the law, chase after him and gun him down.


We don't disagree one iota on this. 

What I am saying is that there is no evidence available that the homeowner chased this man down and just gunned him down. If that is what really happened, this homeowner should be charged and convicted of murder. It is fully possible however, that this man was shot by the homeowner because the homeowner reasonably believed he was in imminent threat of harm.

----------


## John Taylor

> Unless he sleeps fully clothed with his sandles on, then yes he had to put on some clothes.   Come on, I'd like to see you woken up suddenly in the middle of the night and get your gun, keys, start your car and go in 10seconds.  Not only that, but your comment implies he would know that he would have to pursue somebody.  If you heard banging on your door, would you not go to the door first?   I'd wager the guy had to find out the door banger had fled, before he got all that stuff together to pursue.   Way more than 10seconds.



I said out the door in ten seconds. 

Of course I could be out the door in ten seconds with a gun and my keys. Both are on the nightstand. 

Why does someone have to be fully clothed in order to pursue someone violating one's rights? 

Why can't one drive or run without sandals on? You need to get out of Berkley.

What makes you think this homeowner was fully clothed? 

I say you're making up garbage unsubstantiated and not supported by the facts. 





> Did I say that?  I said the supposed violation had already stopped.  Yes, if a rapist "finishes" then walks away, the crime has already "stopped" pursuing them would not have the intent of "stopping" the act as you claim.


Sure, of course, but the woman could still pursue the assailant and catch and hold them for the police. That is what DID happen here. The only thing in controversy here is what happened next, whether the homeowner was under a reasonable apprehension for his physicial safety, or not. If so, no charges should be brought. If not, then he should be prosecuted. 

We don't know enough to support your demands for a rope and an oak tree for this homeowner.

----------


## MikeStanart

> *pounding on someone's door in the middle of the night, being on their property uninvited and with the intent to disturb, disrupt, harass, and deprive a property owner of the quiet enjoyment of their property. . .* *is aggression.* 
> 
> Without the right to quiet and peaceful enjoyment and use of one's property, there is no property right. This is a classic definition of a property rights violation.



Annoying? Absolutely. 
Reason to call the cops?  Only if you felt you were in danger; which in this case the homeowner was not

But Agression?  You're flipping nuts!

----------


## Krugerrand

> This guy pounded on another man's door in the middle of the night, while intoxicated, and then ran from the homeowner who stopped him a few feet down the street from his home. When the homeowner stopped this oaf, he called the police. Only after this was there any violence... and the origins of that violence are contested. We don't know what happened precisely after that, but that will come out in the medical examiner's report, the ballistics reports, and the police reports. Wait until the evidence comes out before advocating a lynching.


Again, John, why do you keep making up the intoxication bit?  Two beers do not make a grown man intoxicated.




> http://www.heraldtribune.com/article...1060?p=4&tc=pg
> A look at the bar's video shows Spann and his 21-year-old friend Chris Hayes showed up around midnight, showed IDs to the bartender and then stayed for 47 minutes while having two beers, owner Tom Elliott said.


Did you just make up "a few feet down the street?"  Why is he in his squad car to go a few feet?
Mapquest shows differently (specific addresses guessed to show street map)
Google Maps show at LEAST 15 properties were traveled.  It could be double that.




> http://www.heraldtribune.com/article...1060?p=1&tc=pg
> Verdoni, 33, told his superiors that his doorbell was rung around midnight Thursday, and then he heard banging on his door around 1 a.m. He said he *chased down one prankster in his squad car* and found him outside a home in the 300 block of Lisbon Street. There he encountered Spann and told him to lay down while he called for backup.


Now take notes of the quotes below.  Records are already missing.  The investigation has been turned over to a Sheriff's department that already proclaimed the cop innocent (so much for waiting for the facts).  The lead investigator is a buddy of the shooter who is ignoring the dead man's family.




> http://www.heraldtribune.com/article...1060?p=3&tc=pg
> McNulty said his agency was first to respond to the shooting, but quickly *turned the investigation over to the Sheriff's Office.*
> 
> *Police logs do not have any responses on Valencia or Lisbon or Ponce De Leon streets the night of the shooting. McNulty and the department's records manager had no explanation for the lack of records.*





> http://www.heraldtribune.com/article...1060?p=1&tc=pg
> *Sheriff Tom Knight has said that he believes Verdoni's actions were justified* and that the investigation will clear the nine-year veteran.





> http://www.heraldtribune.com/article...1060?p=3&tc=pg
> Spann's family has* doubts about the investigation, especially as the lead criminal investigator -- Lt. Charlie Thorpe -- is listed as a friend of Verdoni's* on the social networking site Facebook.
> 
> *"Nobody from the Sheriff's Office is even talking to this family,"* said Alan McEwen, Spann's uncle. "This was a prank and the officer goes and shoots the kid?





> http://www.heraldtribune.com/article...1038?p=2&tc=pg
> *Sheriff Knight* says witnesses and other evidence support key aspects of Verdoni's report; *some of Spann's friends and an attorney hired by one of them disputed that account.*





> http://www.heraldtribune.com/article...1047?p=4&tc=pg
> Verdoni, however, may have violated an internal Sarasota *Sheriff's Office policy that instructs officers not to get personally involved in neighborhood disputes or family incidents.*
> 
> "Such disputes shall be *processed by on-duty deputy sheriffs*," the policy states. "Members shall not attempt to exercise authority or make arrests in their own quarrels ..."
> 
> But *Sheriff Knight made it clear at the press conference that he supported Verdoni'*s decision to forgo calling 911 and act on his own.
> 
> "He has a duty to take action," Knight said.


This is a textbook description of what a cover-up looks like for a cop shooting somebody for no good reason.  You tell me to wait for the facts before lynching.  I'm all for waiting for the facts.  *But, I'd like somebody other than the cops buddy do the investigating.*  I'd also like if you did not *make up* facts in the meantime.

----------


## MelissaWV

Since people like to read things into a story that are not there, here it is again.
The bold was added by me in order to make some points and discuss some things.




> *In Venice shooting, a hunt for answers*
> 
> By Todd Ruger, Anthony Cormier & Kim Hackett
> Staff Writers
> 
> Published: Tuesday, April 20, 2010 at 1:00 a.m.
> Last Modified: Monday, April 19, 2010 at 11:31 p.m.
> 
> http://www.heraldtribune.com/article...1060?p=1&tc=pg
> ...


[1] This is not "a few feet."  Other articles use language along these lines, too.  Notice the language in the press conference itself:




> Verdoni got into his patrol car and drove around to look for the person or persons who banged on his door.


"Drove around to look for," not "chased," not "follow," but "to look for."  It does not sound a whole lot like hot pursuit.

[2] The person was such a threat that, once he was on the ground, he was not handcuffed.  Another article offers the following:




> Initially, Spann complied with Verdoni's request to get down on the ground and stay there, but Spann then became noncompliant, the sheriff's office said.
> 
> Verdoni *went to his squad car to call for backup* when the confrontation escalated. Verdoni told his superiors that Spann tackled him, and Verdoni's head struck the pavement.


In addition, the call logs are possibly missing.

From later on in the same article:




> Retirees Jim and Betty Robertson live across the street. They were up watching a late-night show early Friday morning and heard the gunshots.
> 
> They came outside and "one kid was yelling the f-word over and over 'You shot my friend! You shot my friend! *Why didn't you put handcuffs on and arrest him?*' " said Betty Robertson.


* * *

Having looked all this up, as is easy to do, it seems like it was about 0.3-0.4 miles from the officer's house to the general area where the shooting happened.  That is not "just a few" feet, and it's unclear whether or not the homeowner made a beeline for that area, or was driving around as some reports indicate, however it's not desperately far, either.

----------


## specsaregood

> Why does someone have to be fully clothed in order to pursue someone violating one's rights? 
> Why can't one drive or run without sandals on? You need to get out of Berkley.
> What makes you think this homeowner was fully clothed? 
> I say you're making up garbage unsubstantiated and not supported by the facts.


*Perhaps you should read the news articles on the subject instead of trying to insult somebody?*  They clearly stated how the guy was clothed.   Thanks for playing.




> Sure, of course, but the woman could still pursue the assailant and catch and hold them for the police. That is what DID happen here.


So you were wrong when you said he was trying to stop the act.  




> We don't know enough to support your demands for a rope and an oak tree for this homeowner.


*Funny, somebody that clearly hasn't read the news articles, claiming I don't know enough*.  Besides, I never called for a rope and tree, I called for him to be charged and be judged by a jury.

I too like playing devil's advocate, but I usually try to get informed about the situation first.

----------


## John Taylor

> Annoying? Absolutely. 
> Reason to call the cops?  Only if you felt you were in danger; which in this case the homeowner was not
> 
> But Agression?  You're flipping nuts!


What precisely do you think your property rights include? You apparently don't think they include QUIET ENJOYMENT. You're out of your mind.

----------


## Krugerrand

> What I am saying is that there is no evidence available that the homeowner chased this man down and just gunned him down. If that is what really happened, this homeowner should be charged and convicted of murder. It is fully possible however, that this man was shot by the homeowner because the homeowner reasonably believed he was in imminent threat of harm.


While I disagree with your first sentence, I agree that if a person feels their threatened they can use force - lethal if necessary.  BUT - a home owner can not go plopping themselves through the neighborhood and trespass on somebody else's private property and then claim to feel threatened and shoot them.  If that's the case, they should LEAVE that other person's private property.

AND - and this is a big one ... this bogus investigation is a green light to any cop that wants to beat up on somebody that offends them without - and even kill the person - without repercussion - as long as they can claim they feel threatened.

That's a dangerous precedent.  That is why the sheriff's policy prohibits them from taking personal matters into their own hands.  That's why I'm suspicious when that policy is not followed.

----------


## Ninja Homer

> The other man *had* stopped, he left the scene, the threat was gone.
> 
> In no state does the law allow lethal force to be used against someone who is no longer a threat.


Exactly.  In a fair courtroom, the ding-dong-ditching part of the story would just be background info... a connected minor incident that led up to the major conflict.  And it wouldn't be considered as defense, it would be considered as motive for murder.

----------


## John Taylor

> Again, John, why do you keep making up the intoxication bit?  Two beers do not make a grown man intoxicated.


First of all, alcohol impacts different individuals differently. Two beers is enough to make some grown men intoxicated, or at the very least, impaired. In any event, anyone who has ever talked to somoene who's gotten DUIs know that everyone always says "I only had two beers".... yeah, in the last half hour. I'll wait for the toxicology screen if you don't mind.





> Did you just make up "a few feet down the street?"  Why is he in his squad car to go a few feet?
> Mapquest shows differently (specific addresses guessed to show street map)
> Google Maps show at LEAST 15 properties were traveled.  It could be double that.


Fifteen 1/8 acre lots. Wow, he made it 250 yards! Horray for your speedy gonzalles. 





> Now take notes of the quotes below.  Records are already missing.  The investigation has been turned over to a Sheriff's department that already proclaimed the cop innocent (so much for waiting for the facts).  The lead investigator is a buddy of the shooter who is ignoring the dead man's family.


I too am interesting in knowing what happened to these logs, but that doesn't turn the burden of proof from the state to the homeowner. 












> This is a textbook description of what a cover-up looks like for a cop shooting somebody for no good reason.  You tell me to wait for the facts before lynching.  I'm all for waiting for the facts.  *But, I'd like somebody other than the cops buddy do the investigating.*  I'd also like if you did not *make up* facts in the meantime.



This is a textbook definition of defending one's private property rights... what followed is in controversy. 

*Stop trying to lynch a quite possibly innocent man without knowing the facts.*

----------


## Ninja Homer

> What precisely do you think your property rights include? You apparently don't think they include QUIET ENJOYMENT. You're out of your mind.


A truck just drove by my house.  It was loud.  I'd like to kill that loud motherfucker.  If only I was a cop...

----------


## John Taylor

> *Perhaps you should read the news articles on the subject instead of trying to insult somebody?*  They clearly stated how the guy was clothed.   Thanks for playing.
> 
> 
> So you were wrong when you said he was trying to stop the act.  
> 
> 
> *Funny, somebody that clearly hasn't read the news articles, claiming I don't know enough*.  Besides, I never called for a rope and tree, I called for him to be charged and be judged by a jury.
> 
> I too like playing devil's advocate, but I usually try to get informed about the situation first.


You should read the articles before advocating a legal lynching of someone. Shame on you, just because there's a court room doesn't mean that the person being charged isn't being railroaded. You a sick.

----------


## John Taylor

> A truck just drove by my house.  It was loud.  I'd like to kill that loud motherfucker.  If only I was a cop...


There was no aggression or violation of your property rights. A person cannot be killed if they do not place the shooter in a reasonable apprehension of iminent physicial harm.

----------


## Krugerrand

Just to tie this into the big brother state.  My area is installing surveillance cameras all over town.  While I dislike this invasion of privacy ... I think these types of things will help reduce the propensity towards policy violence.  It's a lot harder to make up the facts when a camera is rolling.

That said ...isn't it sad that the only tolerable aspect of big brother's privacy invasion is that it offsets the unease of big brother's brute-squad coming after you?

----------


## JeNNiF00F00

> A truck just drove by my house.  It was loud.  I'd like to kill that loud motherfucker.  If only I was a cop...


No $#@!.  Those damn garbage men wake me up every Thursday morning!  Especially the recyclers that come by throwing glass bottles into the truck at 8.30am!!  Next time they wake me up i'll just start shooting.

----------


## specsaregood

> You should read the articles before advocating a legal lynching of someone. Shame on you, just because there's a court room doesn't mean that the person being charged isn't being railroaded. You a sick.


Thanks for trolling with us today.  It has clearly been demonstrated that you fail at reading.

----------


## MikeStanart

> No $#@!.  Those damn garbage men wake me up every Thursday morning!  Especially the recyclers that come by throwing glass bottles into the truck at 8.30am!!  Next time they wake me up i'll just start shooting.


Oh, don't get me started on those little girl scouts!

It's almost like they enjoy interrupting me while I'm trying to watch Oprah!

Lock and Load!

----------


## MelissaWV

To recap the possibilities:

1. The homeowner feared for his life.  If this were so, one could very easily expect someone with a firearm and the appropriate training to secure their home and shoot anyone who was threatening them with an equal degree of force.  Someone banging on one's door at 1am certainly has the potential to be disturbing.  However, this does not explain why this same person would get into some sandals, grab their keys, their gun, and hop in their squad car to go looking for the person who did it.  In fact, it seems counterintuitive.  What if he didn't see all the people involved fleeing?  What if someone was there, in the bushes, and waiting for him to storm off to do some harm to his wife and child, or to assault him?  This fear seems situational.

2. The homeowner was justified in trespassing and following because he was in hot pursuit.  This makes no sense, because the police's own press conference indicates he had to "drive around" after them.  He also has to have lost line of sight at some point, because he had to a) wake up, b) determine the source of the banging, c) observe the suspects, d) take note of their flight (direction, speed, etc.), e) gather his clothing, shoes, keys, and gun, f) get to his car, g) open the garage, and so on.  This break means that two events happened which, again, is very much in line with what the police conference itself reveals.

3.  The officer had no choice but to shoot.  Again, this makes no sense, seeing as the officer had the suspect on the ground and did not cuff him.  Perhaps you would make an argument here that he did not grab his handcuffs on the way out of the house.  Isn't it strange his first thought was to kill, and not to detain, and that is precisely what happened?  He shot this guy twice.  What a mess.  How interesting that it could have all been avoided so easily.  This, though, is the only point that seems up for debate, because he COULD have been engaged in a struggle where he thought he was in mortal danger.  He did not know whether or not the suspect had a gun or knife or other weapon, for instance, though I wonder why the suspects weren't restrained by this point.  

4.  Being a police officer doesn't matter; this is a case of a homeowner doing something.  As another poster pointed out, though, the moment he stopped to grab his gun and jumped into the police cruiser, he became responsible for his actions to a special extent.  He has more specialized training than an average citizen, and departmental procedures/rules extend beyond the official work hours.  

5.  He was out for blood, out for revenge, out to kill on sight.  This, however, holds no water either... or else why is the other suspect alive?  Why only two shots (someone in a rage is likely going to keep shooting)?  

I could go on, but it's another day, and it's beautiful outside... and I still hope John Taylor gets a hug.

----------


## Krugerrand

> First of all, alcohol impacts different individuals differently. Two beers is enough to make some grown men intoxicated, or at the very least, impaired. In any event, anyone who has ever talked to somoene who's gotten DUIs know that everyone always says "I only had two beers".... yeah, in the last half hour. I'll wait for the toxicology screen if you don't mind.


But, where do you get off calling him intoxicated?  That's my point.  You did NOT wait for toxicology results!




> Fifteen 1/8 acre lots. Wow, he made it 250 yards! Horray for your speedy gonzalles.


Again ... you misrepresented the facts to make it seem like a HOMEOWNER chasing the guy down.  The facts suggest a COP HUNTING him down.






> I too am interesting in knowing what happened to these logs, but that doesn't turn the burden of proof from the state to the homeowner. 
> 
> This is a textbook definition of defending one's private property rights... what followed is in controversy. 
> 
> *Stop trying to lynch a quite possibly innocent man without knowing the facts.*


How can you have no concern about what looks like a cover up?  Why are not outraged that the cops buddy is doing the investigating?  Why do you ignore that the 'impartial' investigators have already declared the cop innocent?

Finally - what hope do you offer somebody that cops cannot attack somebody at will and claim they felt threatened and then shoot them?

The picture I see in this story is a cop out for revenge.  He felt threatened because he CREATED a threatening situation.

----------


## Krugerrand

> No $#@!.  Those damn garbage men wake me up every Thursday morning!  Especially the recyclers that come by throwing glass bottles into the truck at 8.30am!!  Next time they wake me up i'll just start shooting.


I have some that roll by the neighboring office building at 3am.  Eventually I'll get mad enough to file a complaint.

----------


## JeNNiF00F00

> I have some that roll by the neighboring office building at 3am.  Eventually I'll get mad enough to file a complaint.


3am?!!  Thats way too early.

----------


## JeNNiF00F00

> Oh, don't get me started on those little girl scouts!
> 
> It's almost like they enjoy interrupting me while I'm trying to watch Oprah!
> 
> Lock and Load!


And the pesky boy scouts selling that sucky ass popcorn for 18 dollars a box! I thought I was helping out but when I finally got my popcorn it was about a handful's worth in 1 bag.  Next time they will pay!!!!

----------


## MelissaWV

> 3am?!!  Thats way too early.


One man's early...

I used to be up at that hour picking up my then-boyfriend from work.  I'd get home, quietly, and finally between one thing and another get to bed at around 5am.  Without fail, at about 6:30am the lawnmowers at the apartment complex would start up.  Then by 7:30am it was the weedeaters and hedge trimmers.  By 9:00am the lady upstairs would start watching gameshows full blast, and bathe her special needs son.  By noon it was time for us to go to work again.

The funny thing is that the lease did have a "quiet enjoyment" clause, but it was never enforced.  I learned to deal with it, because it's silly to expect every single other person to abide by my wishes.  If I had wanted them to, then I would have put up signs and written letters, and followed the proper procedure to get it all to stop.

----------


## Krugerrand

> To recap the possibilities:
> 
> 5.  He was out for blood, out for revenge, out to kill on sight.  This, however, holds no water either... or else why is the other suspect alive?  Why only two shots (someone in a rage is likely going to keep shooting)?


I do believe this was the case.  I believe he was out for revenge.  I doubt intended to kill him; rather, I think he intended to beat the crap out of him.  But - he tried to beat the crap out of a young healthy wrestler.  At this point, the young healthy wrestler had the choice of curl up on the ground and take the beating or resist.  I'm guessing he resisted.  The cop was out matched and because of that he did feel threatened and then used the gun.

That's why my concern in the posts above is that cops can create a threatening situation and then shoot somebody because of it if they resist.

----------


## JeNNiF00F00

> One man's early...
> 
> I used to be up at that hour picking up my then-boyfriend from work.  I'd get home, quietly, and finally between one thing and another get to bed at around 5am.  Without fail, at about 6:30am the lawnmowers at the apartment complex would start up.  Then by 7:30am it was the weedeaters and hedge trimmers.  By 9:00am the lady upstairs would start watching gameshows full blast, and bathe her special needs son.  By noon it was time for us to go to work again.
> 
> The funny thing is that the lease did have a "quiet enjoyment" clause, but it was never enforced.  I learned to deal with it, because it's silly to expect every single other person to abide by my wishes.  If I had wanted them to, then I would have put up signs and written letters, and followed the proper procedure to get it all to stop.


I go to bed at that hour :P

----------


## dean.engelhardt

> To recap the possibilities:
> 
> 1. The homeowner feared for his life.  If this were so, one could very easily expect someone with a firearm and the appropriate training to secure their home and shoot anyone who was threatening them with an equal degree of force.  Someone banging on one's door at 1am certainly has the potential to be disturbing.  However, this does not explain why this same person would get into some sandals, grab their keys, their gun, and hop in their squad car to go looking for the person who did it.  In fact, it seems counterintuitive.  What if he didn't see all the people involved fleeing?  What if someone was there, in the bushes, and waiting for him to storm off to do some harm to his wife and child, or to assault him?  This fear seems situational.
> 
> 2. The homeowner was justified in trespassing and following because he was in hot pursuit.  This makes no sense, because the police's own press conference indicates he had to "drive around" after them.  He also has to have lost line of sight at some point, because he had to a) wake up, b) determine the source of the banging, c) observe the suspects, d) take note of their flight (direction, speed, etc.), e) gather his clothing, shoes, keys, and gun, f) get to his car, g) open the garage, and so on.  This break means that two events happened which, again, is very much in line with what the police conference itself reveals.
> 
> 3.  The officer had no choice but to shoot.  Again, this makes no sense, seeing as the officer had the suspect on the ground and did not cuff him.  Perhaps you would make an argument here that he did not grab his handcuffs on the way out of the house.  Isn't it strange his first thought was to kill, and not to detain, and that is precisely what happened?  He shot this guy twice.  What a mess.  How interesting that it could have all been avoided so easily.  This, though, is the only point that seems up for debate, because he COULD have been engaged in a struggle where he thought he was in mortal danger.  He did not know whether or not the suspect had a gun or knife or other weapon, for instance, though I wonder why the suspects weren't restrained by this point.  
> 
> 4.  Being a police officer doesn't matter; this is a case of a homeowner doing something.  As another poster pointed out, though, the moment he stopped to grab his gun and jumped into the police cruiser, he became responsible for his actions to a special extent.  He has more specialized training than an average citizen, and departmental procedures/rules extend beyond the official work hours.  
> ...


6.  The 20 year old possed the offical Obama birth certificate, exposing his true nationality.  The officer was programmed by the White House to kill him before the truth got out.

----------


## tmosley

> What precisely do you think your property rights include? You apparently don't think they include QUIET ENJOYMENT. You're out of your mind.


So next time I'm woken by a passing ambulance, I should grab my rifle, then?

Kids being loud the street?  Shoot em!

Someone making a delivery, and rings your doorbell?  Blow him away.

Kids next door playing heavy metal in their garage?  Light 'em up!

Still waiting on the name of your town.  You are a public menace.

----------


## John Taylor

> So next time I'm woken by a passing ambulance, I should grab my rifle, then?
> 
> Kids being loud the street?  Shoot em!
> 
> Someone making a delivery, and rings your doorbell?  Blow him away.
> 
> Kids next door playing heavy metal in their garage?  Light 'em up!
> 
> Still waiting on the name of your town.  You are a public menace.


1) Passing ambulance isn't violating your private property rights. 
2) Kids loud on the street aren't violating your private property rights. 
3) Kids next door playing heavy metal... might be in fact violating your private property rights, depending on the frequency, reasonablness of time of day, and intrusion of sound.

No one on this thread, to my knowledge, has advocated killing anyone merely for pounding on someone else's door in the middle of the night, though that is a violation of one's private property rights, as it is a physical intrusion upon the property, and contract and disruption of the owner's use of their own private resources. 

You are menace to individual liberty and the entire movement to defend private property rights. Go back to Berkley.

----------


## John Taylor

> I do believe this was the case.  I believe he was out for revenge.  I doubt intended to kill him; rather, I think he intended to beat the crap out of him.  But - he tried to beat the crap out of a young healthy wrestler.  At this point, the young healthy wrestler had the choice of curl up on the ground and take the beating or resist.  I'm guessing he resisted.  The cop was out matched and because of that he did feel threatened and then used the gun.
> 
> That's why my concern in the posts above is that cops can create a threatening situation and then shoot somebody because of it if they resist.


You believe he was out for revenge... so you want him charged, even though the evidence at this point doesn't warrant charging the homeowner with murder. Nice. Justice!!!

----------


## John Taylor

> Thanks for trolling with us today.  It has clearly been demonstrated that you fail at reading.


Thanks for pretending to give a damn about defending everyone's right to their own private property, and everyone's right to their own self-defense. You fail at consistency and have only demonstrated your refusal to judge a person based on their actions alone, but instead place your determining emphasis on the color of the clothes they wear.

FAIL.

----------


## MelissaWV

> 6.  The 20 year old possed the offical Obama birth certificate, exposing his true nationality.  The officer was programmed by the White House to kill him before the truth got out.


Nope, because then the officer would have hunted the kid down via phonebook (SARAH CONNOR?!?!?) and blasted through his door while he was making a sandwich or something.

I was being serious by addressing most of the various scenarios brought up in this thread.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> You are correct in your analysis of the use of lethal force in Florida. I am not saying anyone should be shot for "threatening to knock on a door".


That's the law in all 50 states, once an attack requiring lethal force to stop, *has* stopped, either because of your actions or because the attacker has fled or ceased or otherwise withdrawn himself, you cannot go after that person and use deadly force against them.





> That's not why this shooting took place, but rather, because, after the homeowner caught the aggressor, the homeowner felt threatened, and shot the aggressor. Now, whether this shooting was in fact one a reasonable person in the same situation would have done is a question to be determined when all the evidence is known, but we shouldn't support lynching a homeowner who quite likely was just doing what any one of us would have done in that situation.


Correct, but as a regular citizen, you would be prosecuted for this, because you chased the person down.

Once having done that, *you* became the aggressor, and you would be held liable for whatever transpired next.

And if that included the original suspect getting shot, you would be held accountable for that, *even if that person threatened you*.

The law's reasoning is that "if you had not continued the violent confrontation after the initial aggressor retreated, then the whole thing never would have happened." All of this is basic legal training that you get at any CCW class.

That, of course, is *not* going to happen in this case because of the "special citizen" status of the cop. That "special status" is all I'm "lynching" in this case. I stated at the get go that I wasn't quite sure of what to make of this case, and will wait for a few more facts to come out.

That's also assuming the account of the story is true and correct in the details of the struggle and shooting.

I have my doubts about it.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

John makes assertions but has made no citation to support it.

I have posted:

1.  Florida Property Owner Handbook excerpts because Florida statue divides property guests in distinct legal categories for purposes of property rights.
2.  Florida Statues for trespass to which only two statues can apply to property without signage based on the express definition of posted property.
3.  Florida Supreme Court jury instructions which clearly illustrates the elements of trespass have not been met.
4.  A Florida appeals court citation dealing with a trespass case that articulated specific standards for officers that has been well established in Florida law.  To make an arrest for a misdemeanor without a warrant the officer must witness it.  I provided a citation, John talks out of his ass:




> In Florida, a police officer may make an arrest without a warrant under a variety of circumstances. Among those circumstances are:
> 
> 1) when the officer knows that a warrant for your arrest has been issued and is still in effect even though the warrant may be held by another police officer;
> 
> 2) when the arresting officer has good reason to believe that a felony has been or is being committed and that you are the person who has committed or is committing the felony.
> 
> A felony is a crime which is punishable by death or by imprisonment in the state penitentiary for a term of years. Examples of felonies include the more serious crimes such as murder, sexual battery, robbery, burglary, sale of narcotics, as well as grand larceny, keeping a gambling house and many others;
> 
> 3) *when a misdemeanor is committed in the presence of the officer.*
> ...


John makes federal citations for an arrest without regard to Florida law.




> Based upon reasonable suspicion that you may be involved in criminal activity, a police officer may require you to identify yourself and explain your presence at a particular time, without arresting you. *Under Florida law the officer may not remove you from the immediate vicinity without making an arrest, unless you voluntarily accompany the officer to some other location*.
> 
> If the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that you are armed, he or she may conduct a limited pat-down of your outer garments for the purpose of detecting weapons. If this "frisk" results in reasonable belief on the part of the officer that you are carrying a weapon, the officer may remove the suspicious object for protection. The officers must return to you any unlawful object found unless they places you under arrest. Unless the officer places you under arrest, the frisk or search must be limited to suspected weapons.
> 
> The officer may ask you some questions in order to complete the field interrogation card. You have a constitutional right to not answer them, or give your name, unless the officer has an articulable suspicion that you are involved in a crime.
> 
> Section 776.013(3) states that a person may only use deadly force if he or she is attacked, is not engaged in an unlawful activity, and is in a place where he or she has a legal right to be.
> 
> http://library.findlaw.com/1997/Sep/1/130723.html


Relevant facts of the case:

The home owners doorbell was rung at midnight.  Nothing is reported the officer answered the door bell and asked the person not to trespass.

An hour later the officer reported he heard banging on his door.  He did not witness anything, he heard something.  It is reported he left his house dressed, hopped in a patrol car, and encountered someone outside a home in the 300 block of Lisbon Street.

Nothing is reported local police were notified following either incedent until calling for backup.

Nothing is reported how Spann was identified for something not witnessed.  It was reported pranksters in plural but nothing reported how could be known more than one person is involved in something not witnessed.

When the officer went outside there was no one there.  This means there is no threat to justify use of defensive force.

When the officer left his property to chase people down for something not witnessed it is prima facie evidence of vigilante justice or aggression.  He probably intended to teach someone a lesson because he was pissed off.  

There was another story in Florida just a month ago:



> An Escambia man and his neighbor ended up chasing down and shooting at three newspaper delivery men this morning thinking they were actually burglars.
> 
> ......
> 
> The three occupants of the white vehicle were actually delivering newspapers for the Pensacola News Journal and were not involved in the attempted burglary at the Weinberg residence and fled only because they observed the two homeowners armed with guns and believed they were about to become the victims of a robbery.
> 
> The actual burglars were not apprehended and left the area in the confusion. The Sheriff’s Office is investigating that case and has developed suspect information.
> 
> Warrant Affidavits have been sent off for judicial review charging both Weinberg and Stefani with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon without intent to kill
> ...


When the officer left his property to exercise vigilante justice it was in contradiction to department policy.

John would lead you to believe the fact this home owner is a cop is not relevant and nothing could be further from the truth.  In addition to legal precedents for off duty officers this vigilante asshat should know better because he is in the state club.

John makes points about self defense that have no context in a Florida legal discussion based on recent legislation:




> Florida's "Stand Your Ground" Law has been controversial 1 since Governor Jeb Bush signed it into law on April 26, 2005. 2 The Protection of Persons/Use of Force Bill (the Judiciary Committee's Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 436) 3 expanded an individual's legal right to use force in self-defense, including deadly force, 4 without fear of criminal or civil consequences. 5 In doing so, the law abrogated "the common law duty to retreat when attacked before using force, including deadly force in self-defense or defense of others.
> 
> The new law, which took effect on October 1, 2005, substantially amended sections 776.012 and 776.031 and created sections 776.013 and 776.032 of the Florida Statutes.29 The amendment to section 776.012 eliminated the duty to retreat before using deadly force.
> 
> This provision is a significant departure from Florida common law, which required a person to use every reasonable means available to retreat before using deadly force, except when the person was in his or her home or place of work.
> 
> http://www.law.miami.edu/studentorg/...no1/MIA102.pdf


Another gem that was not prosecuted:




> Another incident particularly shows the issues that can arise with the law’s failure to specifically state the amount of force that can be used and the application of the law to defense of others claims. Michael Frazzini was in a camouflage mask and carrying a fourteen-inch souvenir baseball bat when he was shot and killed by Todd Rasmussen. According to Frazzini’s family, Frazzini was watching over his mother’s home and backyard because she thought twenty-two-year-old Corey Rasmussen “had stolen her car keys and [had been] disturbing her property. death of Frazzini are from Todd Rasmussen and his family.  Corey Rasmussen, Todd’s son, was alerted by his sister that someone was lurking in the bushes behind the backyard.  Corey confronted and pulled a knife on Frazzini when he saw Frazzini’s novelty bat (which he allegedly believed to be a lead pipe).  Todd Rasmussen told police that he had his daughter retrieve his .357 revolver and went outside where he saw Corey and Frazzini standing off.  According to Todd, he yelled a warning, and then he shot and killed Frazzini, claiming Frazzini lunged
> at him and Corey.  
> 
> The prosecutors declined to arrest or bring charges against Todd Rasmussen for murder or manslaughter because they said that so long as Todd Rasmussen had fear of death or bodily injury to himself or another—in this case his son—then he had the right to use deadly force.  The prosecuting attorney, Hamid Hunter, said that, taking the Rasmussen family’s account of events at “face value,” there was reasonable belief that Todd Rasmussen feared for his son’s life.  Lee County Chief Assistant State Attorney Randy McGruther remarked that the state would not prosecute a case if there is not a reasonable belief that a jury will convict.  Hunter candidly concluded, “Nobody involved in this decision feels good about it.”  
> 
> Originally, the state attorney’s report stated that Frazzini’s body was found on Todd Rasmussen’s property.  Further investigation found that Frazzini was actually found on his mother’s property.  The prosecuting attorney, Hunter, admitted the error and that he had never actually been to the scene of the crime; however, the prosecutor’s office still determined that Todd Rasmussen should not be charged.  The prosecutors claimed that where Frazzini was killed is not a factor under “Stand Your Ground” because the law simply requires that Rasmussen reasonably fear for the life of his son in order for him to legally exercise deadly force.  
> 
> This incident illustrates the issue that can arise because the statute does not explicitly specify the appropriate/permitted amount of force that can be used in self-defense. The fact that Frazzini was holding a novelty bat compared to the knife-carrying Corey Rasmussen and guncarrying Todd Rasmussen has even caused one of the law’s co-sponsors to question the application of “Stand Your Ground.”  State Representative Jeff Kottkamp stated, “The intent is that you can only use the same amount of force as you believe will be used against you . . . . It certainly wasn’t that you can shoot and kill somebody wielding a souvenir baseball bat.”  But that distinction is not clear from the wording of the law.   Without a requirement of commensurate force specifically written into the law there is no room for interpretation, which can result in injustice.  
> 
> ...

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

And there is this gem about vigilante justice:




> Hall v. State
> 
> ERIK FORREST HALL, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee/Cross-Appellant.
> 
> Case No. 2D01-3082
> 
> COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA, SECOND DISTRICT
> 
> March 14, 2007, Opinion Filed
> ...

----------


## John Taylor

> That's the law in all 50 states, once an attack requiring lethal force to stop, *has* stopped, either because of your actions or because the attacker has fled or ceased or otherwise withdrawn himself, you cannot go after that person and use deadly force against them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, but as a regular citizen, you would be prosecuted for this, because you chased the person down.
> 
> Once having done that, *you* became the aggressor, and you would be held liable for whatever transpired next.
> 
> ...



Fair enough. My position is just that we shouldn't be howling for this man's blood, until we know conclusively that in fact, he did murder this man. I think any other person in a similar position should also be presumed innocent, and should be presumed to have acted in self-defense...

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

Yes he should be charged.  I demand equal application of the law.

----------


## John Taylor

> And there is this gem about vigilante justice:


Totally unrelated to this matter, with the possible execption of demonstrating how we should encourage the state NOT to prosecute ANY person for defending themselves.

----------


## John Taylor

> Yes he should be charged.  I demand equal application of the law.


You "know" the homeowner is guilty? 

Nice Joseph Smith. Care to share with us which angel-demon filled your head with this illumination?

So because one man was convicted for throwing a punch at a man looking away from him who subsequently died, this man, who very well may have been acting in self defense, should also get $#@!ed? A consistent defender of liberty you are not.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> You "know" the homeowner is guilty? 
> 
> Nice Joseph Smith. Care to share with us which angel-demon filled your head with this illumination?
> 
> So because one man was convicted for throwing a punch at a man looking away from him who subsequently died, this man, who very well may have been acting in self defense, should also get $#@!ed? A consistent defender of liberty you are not.


That's for a jury to decide if guilty.

LFOD was saying that he should be *charged*.

----------


## John Taylor

> That's for a jury to decide if guilty.
> 
> LFOD was saying that he should be *charged*.


Ok Mr. Prosecutor. 

If we adopted your standard for charging people with crimes, our prison population would make the drug war victims look like the population of antartica juxtaposed with Asia. 

We should not support people being charged if the evidence does not support a conviction. What you are advocating is better described as "railroading".

----------


## John Taylor

Who care about evidence, let's just charge everyone, and we'll let the juries decide. We'll get the guilty for sure then!!!

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

Based on what has been reported so far there is probable cause for a charge and arrest.  Failure to follow up on probable cause is negligence.

----------


## John Taylor

> Based on what has been reported so far there is probable cause for a charge and arrest.  Failure to follow up on probable cause is negligence.


Where do you get probable cause to believe that the homeowner murdered this man in cold blood instead of shooting him in reasonable self-defense as he maintains. 

Where. Is. Your. Evidence. ???

----------


## MikeStanart



----------


## Danke

> Who care about evidence, let's just charge everyone, and we'll let the juries decide. We'll get the guilty for sure then!!!


There is evidence.  Gun, bullets, corpse, etc.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

Had it gone the other way and Spann killed a vigilante aggressor in self defense you would be screaming for Spann to be charged.

Relevant facts of the case:

The home owners doorbell was rung at midnight.  Nothing is reported the officer answered the door bell and asked the person not to trespass.

An hour later the officer reported he heard banging on his door.  He did not witness anything, he heard something.  It is reported he left his house dressed, hopped in a patrol car, and encountered someone outside a home in the 300 block of Lisbon Street.

Nothing is reported local police were notified following either incedent until calling for backup.

Nothing is reported how Spann was identified for something not witnessed.  It was reported pranksters in plural but nothing reported how could be known more than one person is involved in something not witnessed.

When the officer went outside there was no one there.  This means there is no threat to justify use of defensive force.

When the officer left his property to chase people down for something not witnessed it is prima facie evidence of vigilante justice or aggression.  He probably intended to teach someone a lesson because he was pissed off. 

When the officer left his property to exercise vigilante justice it was in contradiction to department policy.

John would lead you to believe the fact this home owner is a cop is not relevant and nothing could be further from the truth.  In addition to legal precedents for off duty officers this vigilante asshat should know better because he is in the state club.

I have posted: 

1.  Florida Property Owner Handbook excerpts because Florida statue divides property guests in distinct legal categories for purposes of property rights.
2.  Florida Statues for trespass to which only two statues can apply to property without signage based on the express definition of posted property.
3.  Florida Supreme Court jury instructions which clearly illustrates the elements of trespass have not been met.
4.  A Florida appeals court citation dealing with a trespass case that articulated specific standards for officers that has been well established in Florida law.  To make an arrest for a misdemeanor without a warrant the officer must witness it.  I provided a citation, John talks out of his ass:




> In Florida, a police officer may make an arrest without a warrant under a variety of circumstances. Among those circumstances are:
> 
> 1) when the officer knows that a warrant for your arrest has been issued and is still in effect even though the warrant may be held by another police officer;
> 
> 2) when the arresting officer has good reason to believe that a felony has been or is being committed and that you are the person who has committed or is committing the felony.
> 
> A felony is a crime which is punishable by death or by imprisonment in the state penitentiary for a term of years. Examples of felonies include the more serious crimes such as murder, sexual battery, robbery, burglary, sale of narcotics, as well as grand larceny, keeping a gambling house and many others;
> 
> 3) *when a misdemeanor is committed in the presence of the officer.*
> ...


John makes federal citations for an arrest without regard to Florida law.




> Based upon reasonable suspicion that you may be involved in criminal activity, a police officer may require you to identify yourself and explain your presence at a particular time, without arresting you. *Under Florida law the officer may not remove you from the immediate vicinity without making an arrest, unless you voluntarily accompany the officer to some other location*.
> 
> If the officer has reasonable grounds to believe that you are armed, he or she may conduct a limited pat-down of your outer garments for the purpose of detecting weapons. If this "frisk" results in reasonable belief on the part of the officer that you are carrying a weapon, the officer may remove the suspicious object for protection. The officers must return to you any unlawful object found unless they places you under arrest. Unless the officer places you under arrest, the frisk or search must be limited to suspected weapons.
> 
> The officer may ask you some questions in order to complete the field interrogation card. You have a constitutional right to not answer them, or give your name, unless the officer has an articulable suspicion that you are involved in a crime.
> 
> Section 776.013(3) states that a person may only use deadly force if he or she is attacked, is not engaged in an unlawful activity, and is in a place where he or she has a legal right to be.
> 
> http://library.findlaw.com/1997/Sep/1/130723.html




There was another story in Florida just a month ago:



> An Escambia man and his neighbor ended up chasing down and shooting at three newspaper delivery men this morning thinking they were actually burglars.
> 
> ......
> 
> The three occupants of the white vehicle were actually delivering newspapers for the Pensacola News Journal and were not involved in the attempted burglary at the Weinberg residence and fled only because they observed the two homeowners armed with guns and believed they were about to become the victims of a robbery.
> 
> The actual burglars were not apprehended and left the area in the confusion. The Sheriff’s Office is investigating that case and has developed suspect information.
> 
> Warrant Affidavits have been sent off for judicial review charging both Weinberg and Stefani with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon without intent to kill
> ...

----------


## John Taylor

> There is evidence.  Gun, bullets, corpse, etc.


None of that demonstrates murder. It demonstrates that the man was shot, but that does not mean there was a crime. What you need to be able to demonstrate, is that there is probable cause to believe that the shooting was not justifiable homicide, but was murder. 

That. I. Do. Not. See., so I'm going to decline to join your lynchmob yet again until you can find some evidence of this homeowner's guilt.

----------


## John Taylor

> Had it gone the other way and Spann killed a vigilante aggressor in self defense you would be screaming for Spann to be charged. et al...
> :


You're full of $#@!. Jury instructions are WRITTEN for each individual trial. Learn the basics about the law before demonstrating your complete incapacity once again.

Anyone has the inherent natural right to defend their property and their life. I will defend anyone who defends themselves and their rights!

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Ok Mr. Prosecutor. 
> 
> If we adopted your standard for charging people with crimes, our prison population would make the drug war victims look like the population of antartica juxtaposed with Asia. 
> 
> We should not support people being charged if the evidence does not support a conviction. What you are advocating is better described as "railroading".


Our prisons are overpopulated because of ridiculous sentencing and drug laws.

If a person's actions are clearly a matter of self defense then no charges should be filed, of course.

If there is a man dead and the circumstances indicate, like these do, that the shooting was not clearly justified as an immediate, appropriate and timely response to a threat of deadly force, then yes, of course charges should be filed.

If you or I did it, they sure would be. And that's my bitch with the whole thing here, the cop is going to skate on being charged, simply because of his special status.

Unless you want to just go the full ana-cap route and not have any legal system whatsoever, which I'm hip to as well. Even if that's the case there would remain some for form of compensation for people whose rights, property or life was taken from them unjustly.

----------


## John Taylor

> Our prisons are overpopulated because of ridiculous sentencing and drug laws.
> 
> If a person's actions are clearly a matter of self defense then no charges should be filed, of course.
> 
> If there is a man dead and the circumstances indicate, like these do, that the shooting was not clearly justified as an immediate, appropriate and timely response to a threat of deadly force, then yes, of course charges should be filed.
> 
> If you or I did it, they sure would be. And that's my bitch with the whole thing here, the cop is going to skate on being charged, simply because of his special status.
> 
> Unless you want to just go the full ana-cap route and not have any legal system whatsoever, which I'm hip to as well. Even if that's the case there would remain some for form of compensation for people whose rights, property or life was taken from them unjustly.


I don't really disagree with anything you've written here, but I draw a different conclusion from this matter. Merely because you or I might BE CHARGED in this circumstance doesn't mean that this man should be... I don't think ANYONE who acts in self-defense should be charged, and I think that we should EXPAND the protections for self-defensive actions, instead of trying to make everyone be subject to tyranny.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> You're full of $#@!. Jury instructions are WRITTEN for each individual trial. Learn the basics about the law before demonstrating your complete incapacity once again.


One of us is full of $#@! but it's not me:
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/j...ructions.shtml




> 3.2 STATEMENT OF CHARGE
> 	(Defendant), the defendant in this case, has been accused of the [crime of (crime charged).] [crimes of (crimes charged).]
> 
> 1.	Read charges about the specific crimes. See 5.1 through 29.14.
> 
> 2.	If there are multiple counts, the court should explain each count and the lesser included crimes related to it.
> 
> 
> Comment
> ...





> 3.1 INTRODUCTION TO FINAL INSTRUCTIONS
> 	Members of the jury, I thank you for your attention during this trial. Please pay attention to the instructions I am about to give you.
> 
> 
> Comment
> 
> 	This instruction was adopted in 1981.

----------


## John Taylor

> One of us is full of $#@! but it's not me:
> http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/j...ructions.shtml


Ok, post the jury instructions that would be used in this case? Post them? 

You can't because they are tailored and drafted in each case specific context. Each side's attorney drafts jury instructions (or has the freedom to do so) and submits them to the court for riview and acceptance. Bad jury instructions are cause for reversal upon appeal.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> Ok, post the jury instructions that would be used in this case? Post them? 
> 
> You can't because they are tailored and drafted in each case specific context. Each side's attorney drafts jury instructions (or has the freedom to do so) and submits them to the court for riview and acceptance. Bad jury instructions are cause for reversal upon appeal. 
> 
> Again, learn some of the basics before opining.


LOL, are you not reading my posts?

I posted the handbook in #129
I made a citation in post #141, #264, #265
I posted standard jury instructions in post #201, #206
I posted the relevant Florida Statues in post #130, #134, #135

And then you came along and posted an excerpt of the exact same statues in #193 along with this stupid ass comment:




> Here's trespass, because you apparently have the research capacity of a 1st grader. 
> 
> Title XLVI
> CRIMES Chapter 810
> BURGLARY AND TRESPASS View Entire Chapter 
> 
> 810.09  Trespass on property other than structure or conveyance.--


Nice....

In my post a few minutes ago you posted a rebuttal dismissing a citation in less than a minute of my post.

How about stop being an ignorant ass and $#@!ing read what I post before you reply if you are going to debate.

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

And I just posted a link to standard jury instructions in Florida.  On the damn left is a list of criminal offenses.  Pick trespassing and you can see the elements and variables.  Geezus....

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die



----------


## osan

> Being abused is not part of the job.  
> 
> "The guy had no business hunting down a ding dong ditcher with his gun."
> 
> First it is his duty as a swore officer of the law.


No, it is not.




> Secondly, it is his right as a homeowner.  Very citizen has a right to bear arms.


They do not have the right to chase people down in the street with a firearm when no crime has been committed.  The prank was stupid and the little $#@!er probably earned himself a month in county.  Death?  I doubt it.  The cop _claims_ he'd been attacked... maybe, maybe not.  Assuming this is a true claim, the next question is "why?"  Some people, when completely $#@!-scared, go bananas and take wrong action in an attempt to save their own lives from what they see as an immediate threat.  I would call a frothing-at-the-mouth cop in his underwear who likely failed to ID himself as such a fairly scary thing.  Who the hell knows what he may have said to the kid.  If I think I'm going to get shot no matter what I do, I will rather take my chance than just stand there like a turnip.

No matter how you slice it, the deputy's actions were rankly stupid.  Just consider this: what if the whole deal was designed to lure him away long enough so someone wanting revenge could go in and murder his wife and children?  Not very likely, I agree, but not outside the realm of reasonable possibility either.  His actions were STUPID and IRRESPONSIBLE.  His buddies were out on patrol.  He should have called them and let them do their jobs.  He didn't and someone is dead because of it.  He should probably hang.





> "He should have stayed in his house, protected his family (if he really thought he was in danger) and called the proper authorities."
> 
> Would you say the same if he had any different job?


Damned right I would.




> I don't agree that staying in your home is the proper way to deal with pranksters.


What harm did they cause, beyond annoying someone?  A month in county having to eat the "food" would have been all the punishment those boys should have gotten.  They didn't break in - they took nothing, damaged nothing.  Officer Dumb$#@! had no cause to chase them once they were off his property.  He endangered himself, the pranksters, and everyone else in the area.  Imagine had a round gone wild and killed someone not involved.  What would you then say about it?  "Ooops"?  "Oh well"?  "That's the way the cookie crumbles"?  $#@!.  He was as wrong on this as the day is long and he should burn for it and I hope to hell he does.




> Most sheriffs also have authority within the city.  He probably has the proper authority if there is an agreement between the city and county.


They don't have the authority to act like $#@!s.  Not that that fact stops many of them, mind you.




> Any person victimized has rights, even off-duty officers.



That isn't the issue.  The question is whether he acted prudently, and to the extent that the available information goes, he did not.  He acted recklessly and criminally.




> If the report is correct, the guy was going to end up dead no matter which officer arrived.  That is risk you take by attempting to kill a cop.


Oh bull$#@!.  A cop is nobody special and they hold no more authority to violate the rights of others or to kill them than do you  or I.




> "Personally this sounds like a cop getting tired of being pranked and thought he would "teach these punks a lesson", unfortunately he killed one of them."
> 
>  If you are right then I owe you an apology.  But right now he is innocent until proven guilty.


On this point we agree.  The problem I see is that his buddies are going have his six and this will get buried as is usually the case when cops go simple.

----------


## amy31416

Is it too soon to admit that the phrase "ding dong ditch" put some bizarre images in my head?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> is it too soon to admit that the phrase "ding dong ditch" put some bizarre images in my head?


lol

----------


## tmosley

> 1) Passing ambulance isn't violating your private property rights. 
> 2) Kids loud on the street aren't violating your private property rights. 
> 3) Kids next door playing heavy metal... might be in fact violating your private property rights, depending on the frequency, reasonablness of time of day, and intrusion of sound.
> 
> No one on this thread, to my knowledge, has advocated killing anyone merely for pounding on someone else's door in the middle of the night, though that is a violation of one's private property rights, as it is a physical intrusion upon the property, and contract and disruption of the owner's use of their own private resources. 
> 
> You are menace to individual liberty and the entire movement to defend private property rights. Go back to Berkley.


All of the things I posted prevent quiet enjoyment.  

Walking onto someones unfenced yard, where there are no "No Trespassing" signs is not trespassing until you are asked to leave.  At that point, if you leave, you are not guilty of trespassing.  You can't arrest someone for trespassing when they have left the property in question BEFORE you told them to leave.

Knocking on a door, and ringing a doorbell are INTENDED USES of those items.  According to your logic, I would be able to tackle someone who knocked on my door at night for a legitimate reason.  In fact, I would have the right to chase them down, away from my own property and get into a physical confrontation with them.  If they fought back, I would have the right to kill them.

YOU are a menace, because you don't understand what aggression is.  If you don't want people coming to your door at night, post no trespassing signs.  Put up a fence.  Tell them they are not allowed on your property.  They didn't go through any of those kinds of obstacles.  They just walked up to the door.

Indeed, from his perspective, it could have been innocent.  It could have been someone who had the wrong house, and only realized it after he had knocked.  If that were the case, do you think it is right to leave your own property and chase them down, tackle them, and then shoot them for fighting back?

This is analogous to going to war against Mexico because some of their citizens crossed over the international bridge at night, and then left again.  It's asinine.

Face it, dude, you are in the wrong here.  You can't react to a non-violent action with violence under the NAP.  PERIOD.

----------


## dean.engelhardt

> 


Some feel its murder by cop.  Some feel suicide by cop.  I don't think anyone is going to change their minds.

----------


## Krugerrand

> You believe he was out for revenge... so you want him charged, even though the evidence at this point doesn't warrant charging the homeowner with murder. Nice. Justice!!!


I didn't say I was ready for him to be charged (yet).  I said I want a fair investigation - one that's not conducted by his buddies.

----------


## Anti Federalist

bump while searching for another thread

----------


## Live_Free_Or_Die

> bump while searching for another thread


Interesting choice of thread bump...  standing by for the revelation of your search...

----------


## Anti Federalist

Bump

----------


## MelissaWV

Long thread, but worth reading and researching the initial scenario.  Same notion of pursuit, although in this case the guy was "harmed" by the repeated pranks on his property first.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Long thread, but worth reading and researching the initial scenario.  Same notion of pursuit, although in this case the guy was "harmed" by the repeated pranks on his property first.


Yes it is, and as is often the case in these years old threads, I am happy in my consistency.

Thanks for the reminder of this thread.

+rep

----------


## Anti Federalist

> *That's the law in all 50 states, once an attack requiring lethal force to stop, has stopped, either because of your actions or because the attacker has fled or ceased or otherwise withdrawn himself, you cannot go after that person and use deadly force against them.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Correct, but as a regular citizen, you would be prosecuted for this, because you chased the person down.
> 
> Once having done that, *you* became the aggressor, and you would be held liable for whatever transpired next.
> 
> ...


Gonna see if anything ever happened to this guy.

----------


## Philosophy_of_Politics

How many times have cops said "they went for my gun." Then it turns out, that this defense was false?

Under the increasing trend of police brutality, abuse, murder, etc.

I'd still say that the 20-year old never went for it. Just the rules of probability.

----------


## Anti Federalist

As to be expected, justified.



*Officer-Involved Shooting Investigation Concluded*

http://www.sarasotasheriff.org/press...&ForPrintout=1

The investigation into the death of 20-year-old Tyler Spann of Venice is complete and the Sarasota County Sheriff’s Office concluded Deputy Carlos Verdoni’s response was lawful and within agency policies. The State Attorney’s Office has concluded that the shooting by Deputy Carlos Verdoni was a justifiable use of deadly force.

Four local agencies were involved in the investigative process, including the Venice Police Department, the Medical Examiner’s Office, the Sarasota County Sheriff’s Office and the State Attorney’s Office.

Speaking at a news conference today Sheriff Tom Knight said, “An abundance of evidence was compiled, including but not limited to forensic evidence that supports a physical struggle in which Deputy Verdoni was tackled to the pavement; forensic evidence that shows a contact gun wound; a blood alcohol test; and several sworn statements, including one from a local physician who was an eyewitness to the incident.

“Based on the evidence and statements, the State Attorney’s Office noted that although Deputy Verdoni did not know who was trespassing on his premises, *Mr. Spann knew Deputy Verdoni was a law enforcement officer.”*

(And that was his fatal mistake, he approached the domicile of an enforcer - AF)

*Sheriff Knight concluded by recognizing the emotionally charged circumstances*... 

(That's all there *ever* is, "emotions running high" and "we need to put this behind us so the community can heal" and other platitudes and bromides. All so it just happen again next week somewhere else. What horse$#@! - AF)

...of the incident and noting that a life has been lost. He asked that the community keep the Spann family in their thoughts and prayers, and at the same time, respect the privacy of Deputy Verdoni and his family.

----------


## Philosophy_of_Politics

> As to be expected, justified.
> 
> 
> 
> *Officer-Involved Shooting Investigation Concluded*
> 
> http://www.sarasotasheriff.org/press...&ForPrintout=1
> 
> The investigation into the death of 20-year-old Tyler Spann of Venice is complete and the Sarasota County Sheriff’s Office concluded Deputy Carlos Verdoni’s response was lawful and within agency policies. The State Attorney’s Office has concluded that the shooting by Deputy Carlos Verdoni was a justifiable use of deadly force.
> ...


Surprised, to be honest.

But I wouldn't be surprised again, if evidence shows up 3 months from now.

----------


## Anti Federalist

So, I guess my next move is to spam the thread with story after story after story of Mundanes that shot people's dogs or other people that they "assumed" were threatening them and went to jail.

----------


## LibertyEagle

Wow.  A kid knocks on someone's door and runs and this somehow makes him deserve to be shot and killed????

Am I living in an alternative universe?  Because this seems nuts to me.  

Is this what would happen to someone nowadays if they toilet-papered someone's tree?  Does that deserve death too?

We have lost our cotton-picking minds in this country.

----------


## Philosophy_of_Politics

> Wow.  A kid knocks on someone's door and runs and this somehow makes him deserve to be shot and killed????
> 
> Am I living in an alternative universe?  Because this seems nuts to me.  
> 
> Is this what would happen to someone nowadays if they toilet-papered someone's tree?  Does that deserve death too?
> 
> We have lost our cotton-picking minds in this country.


Well, I do not believe the office expected him to go for the gun. Can we establish if the gun was in the holster, and if he ever threatened the kid with death?

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Well, I do not believe the office expected him to go for the gun. Can we establish if the gun was in the holster, and if he ever threatened the kid with death?


Probably not.

The case is closed, the shooter is probably still a cop and the victim is dead.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Wow.  A kid knocks on someone's door and runs and this somehow makes him deserve to be shot and killed????
> 
> Am I living in an alternative universe?  Because this seems nuts to me.  
> 
> Is this what would happen to someone nowadays if they toilet-papered someone's tree?  Does that deserve death too?
> 
> We have lost our cotton-picking minds in this country.


Yes, I think we have.

This is really getting weird, it's a combination of placid servile compliance coupled with random outbreaks of insane, "red assed" rage.

We're in big trouble here.

----------


## Carson

> The kid was playing ding dong ditch, sure he's a little old to be doing that but its still very harmless. The cop car was parked in the driveway of his home so the kids probably knew they were messing with a cop. The cop probably took it personally and decided that he'll handle this himself.
> 
> Personally *I think the cop should have called the police department and let them handle it* rather than getting armed looking for ding dong ditchers. Seems excessive for a cop to need his firearm when he knows kids are just playing pranks on him.



Good one! 

There wouldn't be a story.

----------


## LibForestPaul

> Verdoni, 33, told his superiors that his doorbell was rung around midnight Thursday, and then he heard banging on his door around 1 a.m. He said he chased down one prankster in his squad car and found him outside a home in the 300 block of Lisbon Street. There he encountered Spann and told him to lay down while he called for backup.


I assume, that I, a common mundane, could get into my vehicle, chase down a fleeing "prankster", aim a .45 acp at this pranksters head, call for some coppers, they would actually respond to a ding dong ditch, arrive at the seen, and haul the prankster away all the while congratulating me on my heroics for making the neighbourhood a safer place.

----------


## TheTexan

What do you think would happen if that mundane had been carrying a weapon, and instead shot the off-duty cop who threatened violence upon him?

That'd be a more interesting story.  I'd like to see that kind of story more often.  He'd probably be in jail, but it's better than being dead.

Disclaimer: I'm not advocating violence against cops.  I'm advocating _self defense_ against _individuals_ who threaten you with violence.

----------


## AFPVet

> if the guy actually did tackle him and go for his gun..  it might be warranted... but I have a hard time believing he did.. and especially if that is the testimony of the officer in question.


Agreed

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I assume, that I, a common mundane, could get into my vehicle, chase down a fleeing "prankster", aim a .45 acp at this pranksters head, call for some coppers, they would actually respond to a ding dong ditch, arrive at the seen, and haul the prankster away all the while congratulating me on my heroics for making the neighbourhood a safer place.


Good luck with that.

Let me know when you want to try, I'll chip in for bail.

Or your funeral expenses.

----------


## specsaregood

> Wow.  A kid knocks on someone's door and runs and this somehow makes him deserve to be shot and killed????
> Am I living in an alternative universe?  Because this seems nuts to me.  
> Is this what would happen to someone nowadays if they toilet-papered someone's tree?  Does that deserve death too?
> We have lost our cotton-picking minds in this country.


The part you left out is that it seems they only ruled it "ok" because the kid who died knew before hand that it was a cop's house he was screwing with.   I'll tell you what; if banning dangerous dog breeds is ok, then perhaps it should be ok to prohibit cops from living in your neighborhood as well.

----------

