Teen shot, killed at front door:Davie incident puzzles police (Florida)

[Judi Lynn]

Teen shot, killed at front door

Davie incident puzzles police

By Andrew Ryan
Staff Writer
Posted July 14 2005

Davie · An unarmed 18-year-old died on the stoop of his ex-girlfriend's house early Wednesday, shot twice in the head by a friend of her family who awoke to find the teen at the front door, police said.

The family friend, a man in his 30s whom police did not identify, cooperated with detectives, telling them he did not know the teen and fired two shots in self-defense when he heard him at the front door, according to police spokesman Lt. Bill Bamford. He has not been charged with a crime, but detectives are still investigating.
(snip)

In April, Florida lawmakers passed the "Stand Your Ground" bill, allowing private citizens to meet force with force anywhere they feel physically threatened without fear of criminal or civil prosecution. However, the new law doesn't go into effect until Oct. 1.

That means whatever happened Wednesday morning will fall under the old law, know as a "castle doctrine," which allows residents to shoot intruders inside their home if they feel their life is in danger.

In this case, Rojas died inches outside the front door and the gunman was a guest, not the homeowner.
(snip/...)

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/broward/sfl-sdead14jul14,0,3267859.story?coll=sfla-news-broward

[soup]

1. Don't quite understand bringing up the "Stand Your Ground" law.

Does that mean that had this man been shot and killed at 12:01 a.m. on October 1, 2005, there would be no questions asked?

[LisaL]

2. I don't understand it either.

Clearly, something is very wrong with "stand your ground law", if a private citizen can just shoot anyone that comes to their door.

[davepc]

9. It does NOT. It never did.

The Old Statute read:

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

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

just for reference, here is the definition of a 'forcible felony' in the Florida Statute:

776.08 Forcible felony.--"Forcible felony" means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0776/titl0776.htm
New Statute adds:

776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force;
31 presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.--
2

(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.

The law does NOT allow you to yell OH MY GOD THEY'RE COMING RIGHT FOR ME before you shoot and be exonerated. Nor does it allow you to shoot someone who is not in the act of committing a forcible felony or breaking and entering.

It's all mute towards this case anyways, because the law is not in effect yet.

The wild wild west/blood in the streets hyperbole is tiresome.

You can not murder some one in cold blood and just scream 'self defense' and be exonerated.

[soup]

15. Thank you for your post, davepc,

and the actual statutes. I appreciate the effort.

My question remains - Why would the report even mention the new law? Would it make any difference? If not, why bring it up it at all?

Maybe it's just my interpretation of the article, but the way it's written makes it sound like if this had happened after October 1st, it would be handled differently.

[davepc]

18. From what the article said, i see no reason why this case would be treated

any different....UNLESS the person shot was breaking and entering into the house.

Ringing the doorbell, or just being on the front porch does not constitute breaking and entering. Being outside someones home is not the same as kicking down the door or smashing a window and trying to get into the house.

Being in an argument with someone on their front porch is not a home invasion.

[soup]

22. I understand what you're saying, I just don't understand

why the new law had to be mentioned at all. Is it relevant in any way to this event?

Or maybe it was brought up because a defense attorney could try to use it in some way as part of the defense had it occured after Oct. 1?

If the man who shot and killed the teenager said something along the lines of 'He was trying to get in the house, wouldn't take no for an answer, threatened me, I didn't know who he was, was scared, so I shot him etc. etc.' - Would it 'fly' after Oct. 1st, but not be a valid defense because this happened before that particular date?

[davepc]

23. The jury would have to decide

No different from today.

The point of the law is that if you wake up at 2AM and findsome one in your house (who commited the fenlony of breaking and entering to get there), you do not first have to ascertain if they are just there to steal your T.V. and leave or are there to steal your T.V. and kill you where you sleep.

The automatic presumption (in the new law) is that someone breaking into your house at 2AM (or anytime) or carjacking you, or breaking into your place of business, or trying to kidnap you is NOT there with your best interests in mind, and that you are justified under SPECIFIC circumstances to use deadly force in those cases.

If the prosecutor thinks the shooters story is full of it, then they'll haul the shooter before a jury and let them sort out the details.

The law really doesn't change all that much in terms of when a shoot is legally justified or not.

[soup]

24. It leads me to wonder

how many will actually read and understand the new statutes - or, on the other hand, read an article like this one and think there will be a major change in how they can legally respond to what they feel is a threat.

How does that go? 'Ignorance of the law is no defense'? But when the law is brought up and used in an article like this..

sorry - I'm trying to put my thoughts together, and it's not going very well this morning..

I guess what I'm trying to say is, it shouldn't be presented in the media as if it could be a factor if it isn't.

Whew, took awhile to spit that out. :crazy:

[converted_democrat]

43. I live Florida...........

We had a "neighborhood watch" meeting about this new law almost a month ago. This is going to end up being a huge mess for Florida. They way it was explained at the meeting was if you felt "threatened" you can shoot. You don't even have to be on your own property, you just have to feel "threatened." Period. They don't even specify how "threatened" you have to feel, that's the scary part.

[pinniped]

20. Well, that's also the way I read it.

-Maybe it's just my interpretation of the article, but the way it's written makes it sound like if this had happened after October 1st, it would be handled differently.--

[Romulus]

27. sensationalism

the same reason we keep hearing about "Benifer II" and Angelina Jolie's new adoptee instead of the DSM . . .

The author is just trying to hype up the new law as something it is not in order to generate more hype . . . :crazy:

[krkaufman]

25. "It's all mute towards this case anyways..."

make that "moot"

(just a personal crusade of mine)

[Occulus]

29. Did anyone else catch this part, right at the beginning of the "new" law?

"776.08 Forcible felony.--"Forcible felony" means treason;"

!!

[Judi Lynn]

5. I think so! I think after that time he'd be home free.

That new law seems to cry out to be freely interpreted. No doubt the funeral directors will become very prosperous: rich beyond their wildest dreams!

You could say you were "afraid" anyone was going to getcha and you had to kill him/her first:just like _Jeb's brother's pre-emptive war idea.

[LisaL]

6. I know prisons are over-populated. But that law is going a bit too far.

It's going to be so much fun for prosecutors to get a murder conviction with that new law.
:sarcasm:

[rman]

3. "hearing someone at front door" = attack

must defend self. makes sense no?
ok it doesn't.

[LisaL]

4. It's like wild, wild west out there.

WTF is wrong with Florida lawmakers?
Private citizens can shoot anyone if they feel threatened?
HTF do they expect to be able to prosecute anyone for murder with that law? All you have to do after you kill someone is to say that you felt threatened.

[Judi Lynn]

8. Oh, God. I had to go look up an article on this bill again for a refresher

It's exactly as stupid as it sounds. God help this poor planet. We've got more idiots than we can handle!

April 06, 2005

Jeb Bush backs Florida's 'Kill Bill'
By Simon Freeman, Times Online

A Bill giving Florida citizens the right to shoot and kill anyone who threatens them in public - without first having to try to escape - is set to be passed into law in a move that critics say could turn the Sunshine State into the Wild West.

Governor Jeb Bush has signalled his intention to sign into statute the 'Stand Your Ground Bill', which allows members of the public to "meet force with force, including deadly force and defend themselves without fear of prosecution".

Mr Bush, the President's brother, described the Bill, which has been backed by the National Rifle Association and was yesterday passed 94-20 by the Florida House of Representatives, as "a good, commonsense, anti-crime issue".

But critics warned that it would trigger an escalation in gun crime in the state, and engender a 'shoot-first, ask-questions-later culture. They have dubbed the measure the "Kill Bill" after the Quentin Tarantino film of the same name.
(snip/...)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1557282,00.html

Violence: the first refuge of the inadequate and unstable.

[LisaL]

10. NRA is involved... I wonder why...

Could it be they think they are not selling enough guns?
:sarcasm:

[davepc]

12. It does not allow you to kill someone who "threatens" you

It allows you to use deadly force against someone who a) attempting to/succeeded in breaking and entering into your house or b) attempting to carjack you c) attempting to/succeeded in breaking and entering into your place of business d) attempting to kidnap or otherwise take you hostage

and/or if you have a "reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm"

Someone looking at you funny, acting weird, calling you names, or otherwise "threating" you does not fall into the category of "fear of IMMINENT peril".

Imminent, as in if you don't take immediate action you are going to die. Being scared and your life hanging in the balance are not one and the same.

[LisaL]

13. Why are they bringing up this law in connection with a

murdered teen then? The way it's described in the article, he came to the door and was shot.
So, basically, I could shoot anyone who comes to the door because I might feel threatened by it?
Clearly, the law would make a difference in how the teen's killer could have been treated by the courts, or why bring it up?

[davepc]

17. Scaremongering by a journalist would be my guess

Basically, if you shot someone who came to your door because you felt "threatened" you'd be on trial for murder and a jury would decide if your "feeling threatened" was such that if you did not act then the loss of your own life or serious bodily harm was the only outcome.

Clearly, the law would make no difference in how the killer could of been "threatened" on October 1 or before it. Someone is either in the commission of a forcible felony or they are not.

[soup]

19. Exactly what I'm asking.

Think you worded it better than I did, though.

'Why bring it up?'

[iverglas]

32. newspapers sometimes provide readers with actual information

The Florida legislation in question has been the subject of huge controversy, in Florida and elsewhere.

The fact is that nobody really knows what it means, or what effect it will have.

Because it has been so much in the news, it is reasonable to think that some people, at least, would understand it to be the current law of the land, and think that it would govern this case.

It seems entirely reasonable, to me, for the newspaper to point out that the new law does not govern this case, and to briefly state what the governing law is.

Faulting a newspaper for providing information ... what will we see next?

[iverglas]

34. don't believe much of anything you hear about that bill

I've been through it with a fine toothcomb, and of course my fine legal mind, and I can't make a stitch of sense of it.

Tried to find the discussion in the dungeon about it ... my star expired and I can't get it together to find my visa card and bring it where my computer is and figure out how to operate paypal all over again ... but if you advanced-search the Gun Rights / Gun Control forum for posts by me in the last 6 months with the word "presumption" in them, it should narrow it down enough.

The law creates "presumptions" -- but gives no clue as to who is supposed to be making and applying those presumptions, how they operate, or when they apply. I'll bet there are lawyers who just can't wait to get their hands on it. I sometimes wonder whether some US state legislators even bother to ask the lawyers I'm sure they employ to look at the stuff they write before passing it into laws as likely to endanger their constituents as benefit them ...

[theHandpuppet]

16. Just another daily reminder...

... of why I thank my lucky stars I don't live in Florihell.

[Xithras]

30. The good news is that Jehova's Witnesses will so be extinct in Fl.

You always need to look for the silver lining...

[Misunderestimator]

42. Ok, that's kind of funny.

Ding dong - Boom!

[pinniped]

7. Sounds like a stupid law passed by a bunch of !@#$%^s.

I guess they weren't quite getting the body count they wanted with the old law.

[davepc]

11. It passed unanimously (39-0) in the Florida Senate and 94-20 in the House

[Pert_UK]

14. Holy Fucking Asshole, Batman......

And this is why it's a bad idea to allow widespread public ownership of guns.....and why this new law is a bad idea.

"I'm a guest in somebody's house. There's somebody I don't recognise outside the front door. I feel threatened. Therefore I shoot them twice in the head."

So, under the new law this would be legal, just because the shooter "felt threatened"???

For fuck's sake, it's not worth finding out whether somebody has a good reason to be there before you kill them?

[davepc]

21. No, under the new law it would be murder. same as under the old law.

or criminally negligent homicide at the very least.

[Romulus]

28. if guns were banned

would it still be a bad law?

Under the law, you would have the statutory right to pull out a baseball bat (deadly force) and whack someone who kicked in your front door and barged up your stairs at 2AM . .

(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.

[KansDem]

26. I remember my mom telling me a story of an incident that happened to her

...back in the early 1950s.

She was at home alone one evening when she thought she heard a prowler outside her windows. She called the police, who asked her "Do you have a gun on the premises?" She said yes (my dad was in the military at the time and had a gun in the house). The officer then asked, "Do you know how to use it?" My mom said that she did. The officer then said, "If you need to use it, just make sure an arm or leg is inside the house when we come to investigate."

Fortunately, my mom didn't have to heed this advice.

[LisaL]

39. Was she living in Texas or something?

[KansDem]

41. Actually, I don't really know...

My family lived in Kansas, then California. My dad was in the Navy and was stationed in San Diego. Then he was stationed in Hawaii for a couple of years. That's where I was "created" :blush:, then back to Southern California. So when she told the story, it never occurred to me to ask where this happened (or I might have known at one time and forgot). It's just another one of those times you wished you'd asked a parent more questions about family history before they died.

Oh, and when I was born, Hawaii was still a territory, so perhaps that might have had some factor in this exchange. Or maybe it just the officer she talked to...

[iverglas]

31. hmm, kinda like what happened in Boca Raton not so long ago

Some of our friends in the gun dungeon leapt to the defence of the man who had shot an unarmed 16-year-old in the back as he ran off after ringing the doorbell around midnight on a pre-Hallowe'en night prank. Self-defence, self-defence! Or defence of property, or some damned thing or other.

Why, if the man who killed that kid been guilty of a crime, wouldn't the police have arrested him? Wouldn't they have charged him on the spot?

Well, what the police did was investigate, which is kinda what they're supposed to do.

And they charged him, with manslaughter, as I recall. And he pleaded guilty.

Mr. Milquetoast Accountant, afraid of things that go bump in the night -- to summarize how he first appeared from news reports -- and the holder of a permit to carry a concealed firearm in public -- had shot a kid in the back with a bullet described thus in a news story I linked to in a discussion of the case:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=21309&mesg_id=21428
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/palmbeach/search/sfl-pdrewes07nov07,1,7316256.story

The teenager was killed by a special frangible .38-caliber bullet that disintegrates upon impact, according to Bob Montgomery, the attorney representing Drewes' parents, Luciana and Gregory Drewes.

"It's just amazing that anyone would go out and shop for that type of ammunition. It tears up the inside of the body," Montgomery said. "My prediction is that charges will be filed and that <Levin> will be tried, found guilty and serve time.

As to why the new Florida legislation was mentioned, I would surmise that it was because the newspaper wished to provide its readers with useful information. The new legislation has been the subject of considerable controversy in the press, and the law governing this situation might well be a matter of confusion in some people's minds.

[alarimer]

33. This guy needs to be charged with something

perhaps not Murder One but he needs a few months in jail at least. In no way could this be construed as self-defense. Fucking gun-toting asshole.

[brentspeak]

37. Few months? No, at least a few years.

I'll amend that to "a couple decades".

He just shot and killed an innocent man - a teenager - just for being on the front steps of someone else's house (not even his own). How absurd is that. The guy is complete menace to society. He can't be trusted on the outside.

[alarimer]

38. shoot first, ask questions later

I guess that is the mentality. I swear, it is like we never left the wild west.

[Dora]

35. Oh, this smells so bad.

My gut instinct says the "friend" was molesting or sexually harassing the girlfriend, and killed the boyfriend because the secret was out.

[anotherdrew]

36. what's to investigate, charge this murderer with murder now!

[lateo]

40. Um...it wasn't his home so he shouldn't be protected.