Neighbor twice called police over pranksters (teen prankster)

The Palm Beach Post ^ | Tuesday, October 28 | Dani Davies, Jane Musgrave and Pamela Pérez

[meyer]

I've been on Free Republic for a few years now and I'm appalled that some of the members here think that the man was justified. It's pretty obvious that he had pranks pulled on his house before and was pissed off about it.

I've been on Free Republic for a few years myself, and I'm apalled at the number of people that would convict this man, without a trial, for defending himself. Perhaps we need a few more facts before we state that something is or isn't obvious. The homeowner claimed he was reacting to what appeared to be a weapon. He has not been arrested. He has a clean record. I see nothing in the article that indicates that he was PO'ed.

I've never opened a door in my life with a pistol in my hand. If I'm afraid of what maybe knocking on the other side of my door, I don't open it unless I know who it is. Now if they come through my door or window on their own accord, that's a different story.

More than once, I've answered the door armed. Depending on the design of the home, it may not be possible to see who's on the other side. The man has the right to answer his own door, don't you think?

I find it ironic that people here are so quick to disapprove of the actions of this man. Its a spur-of-the-moment decision. Shoot or don't shoot. If the kid's actions or gestures can reasonably be conceived as threatening, then the guy was justified. If he lashed out in anger, then it was not. Let's find out before judging.

[WorkingClassFilth]

The plot thickens.

[FITZ]

Societal awareness is not that complicated.

Kid's might not --- and they would still be inclined --- by their nature to pull pranks. I realize there are more mentally ill and unstable, the paranoid, the scared-out-of-their-mind types around now --- which is why being a kid is more dangerous today. But honestly --- how many of us never did a single prank --- and pranks are dumb kid things to do --- which is why we quit doing them at some point? My own dad who grew up to be quite a responsible citizen pull some pretty bad pranks --- once they were out in some rural area moving outhouses back 3 feet and some farmer came out and started shooting --- but apparently not to hit them, probably shot into the air. My grandfather pulled some even worse pranks. How do you change the nature of teenage kids to fit in with society today? And they don't all listen to their parents 100% of the time.

[wimpycat]

I would never open my door in the middle of the night unless I knew exactly who it was and what's so important that they have to knock on my door in the middle of the night.

[Restorer]

If you don't think it is acceptable to eliminate a percieved threat on your own private property, then you can't think the 2nd ammendment is valid. What other portions of the constitution do you find invalid?

His private property had been damaged in the past, it is reasonable for him to assume that any prankster on his property after midnight are intending further harm to his property! To bad the teens didn't value private property rights, now, at least one of them, has paid the price for his disrespect.

Danger to property does not justify the use of deadly force. Not morally, and not according to either common or Florida law.

The Founders were perfectly aware of the common law definition of self-defense. Unlike what some of the more belligerent progunners believe, it requires you to essentially be cornered before fighting back.

[Flyer]

The man twice had weapons fired at his home. I'm sure this will have some weight on the decisions to be made by the State's attorney.

[BJungNan]

Hows about praying that no one does anything so stupid ever again, and that the school actually start drilling in some notion of how to be neighborly for a change?

This is not a job for the schools.

[meyer]

Danger to property does not justify the use of deadly force. Not morally, and not according to either common or Florida law.

While I'd agree in terms of Florida law, I might not agree in terms of morality.

The Founders were perfectly aware of the common law definition of self-defense. Unlike what some of the more belligerent progunners believe, it requires you to essentially be cornered before fighting back.

Ummm, not exactly. It must pass the reasonable person test - that is, that a reasonable person in that particular place and time might believe that they are in immenent danger. There are also places and/or situations that allow deadly force to stop a felony in progress though I doubt if that applies here.

There's nothing in the article that says that this wasn't self-defense against a perceived threat, but we all need to understand that it is under investigation. Lots of speculation here, and very little fact other than what's coming out of the media. I don't have to tell anybody what side of the aisle the media sits on, do I?

[Oztrich Boy]

If, when the (possibly sociopathic) infant was seen by the homeowner, he decided to kill the witness: That would justify the use of deadly force.

[stainlessbanner]

HJ - Leave your paranoia "lynching" talk on that other thread.

HRII - follow up to the story.

[steve-b]

It's pretty obvious that he had pranks pulled on deadly weapons fired at his house before

Fact checking; no extra charge.

[CSM]

Let me add that it is reasonable for the homeowner to assume more vandalism and upon opening the door percieved a threat to his person. Without all the facts, it is difficult to tell. If the teens had paint guns, how would the homeowner be able to tell the difference between a paint gun and a bullet gun at 1 am? (of course this is more speculation.)

[stainlessbanner]

Can anyone post case with an air-gun, pellet-gun, bb-gun, or paint-ball gun used by the perp as "deadly assault"?

It might help the discussion.

[steve-b]

Enter "castle doctrine" into your favorite search engine and get back to us when you can speak from a position of knowledge rather than one of ignorance.

[Pharmboy]

When I lived upstate NY in the '70s, my friends dad was a retired DA who always answered the door with a 10 ga. shotgun. He especially enjoyed the reactions of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

[FITZ]

Part of the problem might be laxness on the part of the police since he had gone that route before. Here they have an 11 pm curfew for 16 year olds, mostly for their own safety because it's too dangerous to be a kid today --- they can be arrested just for not being in their own home after midnight.

[CSM]

"Part of the problem might be laxness on the part of the police since he had gone that route before."

Whenever the police fail to adequately protect the safety of society, then society is morally required to ensure their own safety. Take the vigilante case last week in Detroit. The police are to busy generating revenue to respond to these actions until it is to late!

[FITZ]

Here the police generate some pretty good revenue going around at 11pm and picking up kids who aren't allowed to be out there. They pick up the kid, the charge is "violation of curfew", they hold them at the substation, call the parents to come get them --- but they don't call right away --- it's usually a couple hours later. Only the parents can come and get the kid and there is a pretty steep fine the parents have to pay. One curfew violation --- and the parent makes sure their kid is inside their home.

[Oztrich Boy]

His friend frantically pounded on the doors of Levin's sleeping neighbors for help.

What is this? These callous neighbors didn't respond to this urgent attempt to seek help.
Shouldn't they have answered the knocking on their doors after midnight?

[Nebr FAL owner]

No tax dollars as it is a Catholic school.