Florida Concealed Carry banner

1 - 20 of 28 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,143 Posts
OrlandoSentinel.com
Mayor praises homeowner who fired at alleged invaders
Sara K. Clarke and Kevin P. Connolly

Sentinel Staff Writers

7:22 AM EDT, September 14, 2009

The mayor of Ormond Beach praised police -- and a resident who fought back -- after a homeowner fired his shotgun at two alleged home invaders Sunday.

In an email to the media, Mayor Fred Costello said he thinks the actions of homeowner Dane Rollins, 34, to defend himself will make "all our residents are safer and will have less of a threat from subsequent home invasions."

The suspects -- identified as William S. Bell, 38, of Daytona Beach, and Christopher C. Young, 38, of New Smyrna Beach -- were hospitalized.

A third suspect was identified as 28-year-old Brandy Lee Harris of Ormond Beach. She was identified as a "participant,'' though details of her alleged involvement were not immediately released.

All three are being charged with home invasion robbery.

The home invasion and shooting happened on Cypress Circle at about 9:30 a.m. Sunday.

Rollins reported that two armed men barged into his home while he was sleeping and demanded money. He complied, but got a shotgun as they fled the home.

Shots were exchanged in the street between Rollins and both suspects, police said. One suspect fled in a dark Nissan, and was later stopped by Daytona Beach Police.

The driver, who suffered gunshot wounds, was taken into custody and transported to Halifax Hospital. The second suspect, who fled on foot, was found near the residence. He was also taken to the hospital with gunshot wounds.

In his email, the mayor of Ormond Beach said Rollins' actions may deter others from breaking into homes.

"Criminals who otherwise would consider an armed home invasion will consider the results of this home invasion turned around onto the criminal and remember that they don't know who has the firepower to respond!' Costello wrote. "Based upon the information provided, I hope our laws protect the homeowner who protected his home."
Might make it hard to prosecute the homeowner when the mayor sticks up for him. He makes a good point, though the guy may have technically broke the law; the story makes it seem as if they were leaving after all and the fight ended up out in the street. Perhaps he can testify that he feared they might shoot him on the way out.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,071 Posts
I have a friend up in mass. that went to this i have yet to talk to him about it but i will soon.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
11,161 Posts
If the homeowner suffers any legal repercussions, he can always try the "citzen's arrest" defense. It's better than nothing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
481 Posts
Mary Lee and I discussed this case over breakfast, since it happened just south of us (we are in Palm Coast). It seemed to us that if the homeowner were prosecuted, the arguments would center on interpretation of preventing the "imminent commission of a forcible felony." (FL 776.012 and FL 776.031).

The prosecutor might argue that that shooting was unjustified because the felony had already been committed. Shooting fleeing felons is not allowed.

The defense might argue that the felony was not actually consumated until the felons escaped. Stopping them from escaping, by shooting them, turned armed robbery into attempted armed robbery, thereby preventing the "imminent commission of a forcible felony" as specified in the statutes.

We imagine that there might be caselaw out there supporting both interpretations. We concluded that recent cases suggest that the public is leaning more and more towards the second interpretation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
77 Posts
Home Invasion in Ormond Beach

September 14, 2009

Home invasion triggers shootout

ORMOND BEACH -- Two men, each armed with a pistol and one also carrying a rifle, burst into a duplex on the beachside Sunday morning and robbed a man inside.

But they didn't get far--the 34-year-old resident grabbed his shotgun and fired at the two suspects, injuring both of them, police said.

Dana Rollins told officers he was sleeping about 9:30 a.m. when the two men came into his duplex at 4 Cypress Circle and demanded cash. The intruders--identified as 31-year-old William Bell of Daytona Beach and 38-year-old Christopher Young of New Smyrna Beach--were chased down by Rollins, who grabbed his 12-gauge shotgun and fired at the suspects as they bolted, police said.

"Initially, it looks like he (Rollins) was defending himself," said Ormond Beach police Sgt. Kenny Hayes. "It looks like he won't be charged."

Under Florida's Stand Your Ground law, homeowners can use deadly force for self-protection. In addition, a new court ruling says people can shoot even if an attacker is retreating.

Read more about this at:

http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/EastVolusia/evlHEAD03091409.htm

http://www.myfoxorlando.com/dpp/news/volusia_news/091309_Man_shoots_home_invasion_suspects
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,807 Posts
:thumsup for the homeowner.
I think I will find this on the local mullet rapper and put my $.02 comments in.
Look for 2aSupport. Something along the lines of, guess this resident did not want a gift card.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
10,656 Posts
I hope the homeowner comes out all right in this, but I see no legal justification for what he did. I wish that his action was legal, but that doesn't get you anywhere in court.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,807 Posts
OrlandoSentinel.com
Mayor praises homeowner who fired at alleged invaders
Sara K. Clarke and Kevin P. Connolly

Sentinel Staff Writers

7:22 AM EDT, September 14, 2009

The mayor of Ormond Beach praised police -- and a resident who fought back -- after a homeowner fired his shotgun at two alleged home invaders Sunday.
REALLY. You all know that this mayor just joined with the NY bunch, MAIG or Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Typical political headline grabber.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,048 Posts
I hope the homeowner comes out all right in this, but I see no legal justification for what he did. I wish that his action was legal, but that doesn't get you anywhere in court.
While the homeowner's actions may not be legal, he is very unlikely to face any legal repercussions in this particular case. Even if the state attorney had an axe to grind, there would be no political benefit for him in prosecuting the homeowner after the mayor has already come out in support of his actions. In fact, he'd be much more likely to make a political enemy by doing so.

REALLY. You all know that this mayor just joined with the NY bunch, MAIG or Mayors Against Illegal Guns. Typical political headline grabber.
Actually, that's a pretty atypical headline for a politician, especially for a member of MAIG. And he may not be aware of the group's true goals; about 40 mayors have already jumped ship from that organization, according to the NRA.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,558 Posts
OrlandoSentinel.com
Mayor praises homeowner who fired at alleged invaders
Sara K. Clarke and Kevin P. Connolly

Sentinel Staff Writers

7:22 AM EDT, September 14, 2009

The mayor of Ormond Beach praised police -- and a resident who fought back -- after a homeowner fired his shotgun at two alleged home invaders Sunday.

All three are being charged with home invasion robbery.

The home invasion and shooting happened on Cypress Circle at about 9:30 a.m. Sunday.

Rollins reported that two armed men barged into his home while he was sleeping and demanded money. He complied, but got a shotgun as they fled the home.

Shots were exchanged in the street between Rollins and both suspects, police said. One suspect fled in a dark Nissan, and was later stopped by Daytona Beach Police.
According to Florida Statute 776.013 (1)(a)(b) This would be a legal justifiable use of deadly force.

http://www.flsenate.gov/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0776/SEC013.HTM&Title=->2008->Ch0776->Section%20013#0776.013

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

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:

(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
I see no legal action being taken against the homeowner at all, he was well within his legal rights.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,464 Posts
I think the BG's owe the homeowner some ammo to replace the rounds used shooting them.
Our laws sometime appear a little "cart before the horse". If the BG's had't invaded this home, terrorizing the home owner and stolen from him at gun point, we would not need to discuss this. Good news, as the word gets out, we may have less violent crimes, less in jail, more working and lots of freed up government money.
All worked out pretty good. Homeowner's safe and nothing stolen. There are a couple of negatives; loss of ammo, waste of tax payer money for hospital care, jail and prison and not sure if the hospital will get reimbursed or the doctors paid.
Definitively a two edged sword. Win win situations are hard to achieve
Franklin
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
10,656 Posts
According to Florida Statute 776.013 (1)(a)(b) This would be a legal justifiable use of deadly force.



I see no legal action being taken against the homeowner at all, he was well within his legal rights.
T-Sarge, I absolutely hope that you're right. The statute clearly identifies this as a violent felony, but you still have to have reasonable belief that the use of deadly force is necessary to stop the felony. Chasing the BGs into the street meets my personal approval, but I'm not convinced the act is legal.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,256 Posts
T-Sarge, I absolutely hope that you're right. The statute clearly identifies this as a violent felony, but you still have to have reasonable belief that the use of deadly force is necessary to stop the felony. Chasing the BGs into the street meets my personal approval, but I'm not convinced the act is legal.
I agree, maybe it isn't, or hasn't been, but with the recent case law and public outcry maybe we can work to get some of our eroded rights back.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,558 Posts
T-Sarge, I absolutely hope that you're right. The statute clearly identifies this as a violent felony, but you still have to have reasonable belief that the use of deadly force is necessary to stop the felony. Chasing the BGs into the street meets my personal approval, but I'm not convinced the act is legal.
Not in this case, if you look at the wording of the statute:

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.
All the elements in this incident meet the requirements as set forth in the statute:

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself .... 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 ... had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a ... residence.

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew ... that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act ... had occurred.

If the terms used were only in the present tense, then I would say that the homeowner was not within the staute, but since the past term is implied he is within the " letter " of the law.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
77 Posts
The Story Gets More Interesting ....

More Learned About Ormond Beach Home Invasion

[ ... ] Detectives do believe that the crime was planned in advance by Bell, Young, and Harris and that Rollins was targeted due to Harris’ knowledge of his keeping cash and medications at his home.

Detectives have no plans to charge Rollins criminally for his use of the shotgun to fend off the robbers. The shotgun Rollins used however had been modified by sawing off the barrel and stock rendering it illegal to possess.

Rollins will be charged with one count of possession of a short barreled shotgun, a 2nd degree felony.

Read more about this at:

http://www.halifaxareanewswatch.com/more-learned-about-ormond-beach-home-invasion/

http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Local/newEAST01091509.htm/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,558 Posts
Detectives have no plans to charge Rollins criminally for his use of the shotgun to fend off the robbers. The shotgun Rollins used however had been modified by sawing off the barrel and stock rendering it illegal to possess.

Rollins will be charged with one count of possession of a short barreled shotgun, a 2nd degree felony.
... Moron. :doh

A sawed-off shotgun is no more effective than an un-sawed-off shotgun, actually most times it is even less effective.

If he had just left the shotgun the way it was, he would not be looking at a felony right now.

Lesson here to be learned Ladies and Gentlemen. :thumsup :D
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
10,656 Posts
Not in this case, if you look at the wording of the statute:



All the elements in this incident meet the requirements as set forth in the statute:

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself .... 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 ... had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a ... residence.

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew ... that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act ... had occurred.

If the terms used were only in the present tense, then I would say that the homeowner was not within the staute, but since the past term is implied he is within the " letter " of the law.
I know that the wording about a reasonable belief that deadly force is necessary is not in paragraph (1), but it is in (2) where they talk about standing your ground outside your home. It's also in a prior paragraph. I can't argue that your precise reading of the statute isn't technically correct, but we also know that case law doesn't always support that kind of precise interpretation. The spirit of all our firearms laws seems to be that you can defend yourself, but you need to stand down when the threat has been stopped. Running out of your house and into the street to exchange gunfire with the BGs is not in that spirit. I wouldn't want to be a test case.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,140 Posts
Not in this case, if you look at the wording of the statute:



All the elements in this incident meet the requirements as set forth in the statute:

(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself .... 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 ... had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a ... residence.

(b) The person who uses defensive force knew ... that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act ... had occurred.

If the terms used were only in the present tense, then I would say that the homeowner was not within the staute, but since the past term is implied he is within the " letter " of the law.
The use of the words "had" may support your reading of the law.

But that interpretation of "had" would mean that deadly force would be justifiable if I ran into the guys 2 days later. "Had" is still past tense and still in affect.

When does the legal right to deadly force stop. Once the BG is outside? 100 yards away? 5 minutes after the crime?

I'm inclined to think that "had" only applies while in the house.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,558 Posts
I know that the wording about a reasonable belief that deadly force is necessary is not in paragraph (1), but it is in (2) where they talk about standing your ground outside your home. It's also in a prior paragraph. I can't argue that your precise reading of the statute isn't technically correct, but we also know that case law doesn't always support that kind of precise interpretation. The spirit of all our firearms laws seems to be that you can defend yourself, but you need to stand down when the threat has been stopped. Running out of your house and into the street to exchange gunfire with the BGs is not in that spirit. I wouldn't want to be a test case.
I do not see the wording in paragraph 2 that you are describing?

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.
 
1 - 20 of 28 Posts
Top