Stupid question: I'm trying to understand castle doctrine which I think is available as a defense in TX / FL. I think it provides a legal defense to use lethal force to protect one's house (or even your neighbor's) from theft. If so, would this have applied here if the location was his house? Is the application different for an employment location where he's specifically hired for security?

Again, just trying to better understand the doctrine and legal aspects.

^^^
(posted before I saw your post. (not so)Short answer- one may have the "right" to use lethal force under certain circumstances, but most are framed around "forcible felony, protection of life" and in other cases with "property" the applicable state laws should be read and understood (even as far as contacting the proper attorney for clarity if you have such property that would apply, for example, farm/ranch with equipment or livestock that is crucial to livelihood etc.)

I would not shoot someone stealing Halloween decorations. Such a petty thing. (The victim was "invited" as it is a public store with the intent of expecting people to come in to buy, so it is much different than one not "invited" entering your porperty and violating laws.)
Steeling livestock, farm equipment, or other felony type stuff, like breaking into my home while I am in it to steal anything, is a different issue.


I think the "security" guy imagined himself as "officer" material, fantasies about such encounters of "taking down the bad guys", all the way through the "whatever it takes".

Regrettably, he never experienced "force on force" training and all that goes with it, most importantly the realities and the "rest of life after" that is most important in such training with regard to the phycological effects, legal, moral, and ethical considerations.

The big invisible elephant herd in the room.

He had none of that.

When his illusion disappeared with the shot, and he suddenly realized it ain't "Cosplay", was apparent by his breakdown.

Pissed away two lives over ego and delusions of grandeur.

My opinion is any security guard who carries lethal weapons, should undergo the same training as a sworn LEO.

Not unlike military Reserve or Guard who have the same training as Active Duty.

Matters not if they become sworn officers or not, they still are put in situations where they have a duty to engage to an extent, where a non-LEO or Armed Security citizen does not have a duty, but the right to choose to engage.

And we have had that discussion of "just because you can, does not mean you should" in the matters of the individual and "what would you do" context.

quote:

Originally posted by bigwagon:
Putting yourself in a situation like that to protect somebody else's stuff is really stupid.

For real. I had am industrial site once, and the night foreman told me to not get hurt or killed for some shit that was already insured. If the weather is nasty, it's all icy and windy, just stay in the guardshack, because what am I supposed to do if the crane collapses anyway? As long as all the floating stuff stays moored, don't worry, if it does get away, here's the number for the Coast Guard. Blue collar dudes have a different relationship with risk assessment and danger though.

Thanks sigmonkey, that helps. I've been trying to better understand the legal defense aspects (not so much the should I / shouldn't I). Its roots in common law and especially the applicability in protecting 3rd party property (ie - neighbor's or place of employment). Since reading about it, I've been academically curious about the basis that allows for a person to protect his 3rd party / neighbor's property from burglary.

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
Regrettably, he never experienced "force on force" training and all that goes with it, most importantly the realities and the "rest of life after" that is most important in such training with regard to the phycological effects, legal, moral, and ethical considerations.

This is the big take-away from this, I think.

I won't weep much for the thief as there should be serious consequences for illegal activity lest it continues (and thusly, this action may end up being a deterrent and a good thing in the end)., but the death penalty for petty theft is a bit much.

Looks like a mall cop who thought he was a real cop fighting a dangerous felon. As always, tough to tell from one shaky video.

In addition to taking a life over something so minor, I suspect he's going to feel doubly screwed real quick on the legal side:

Blue state and blue county so DA likely to full court press so it gets past grand jury to an actual trial. The DA's historical talking points in media are all anti-Trump and anti-Musk.

Spirit Halloween's attorney is representing the entity paying them (i.e. Spirit Halloween) and likely trying to minimize the payout in the likely civil suit. He's going to realize he needs to hire his own attorney, and I'm assuming that it's a $100+k legal bill he is facing.

I'm not an attorney, but my read of New Mexico lethal force laws are only prevent imminent death or serious bodily harm which this doesn't meet in my mind. Also, it appears that NM's castle doctrine does not extend to businesses.

---

Ego is the anesthesia that deadens the pain of stupidity

DISCLAIMER: These are the author's own personal views and do not represent the views of the author's employer.

General rule of thumb that covers most situations: You can kill to protect your life, you can't kill to protect your stuff.

Of course, the interpretation of when your life (or someone else's life) is threatened is the difficult part.

He had pepper spray and used it from behind the thief… When the thief rolled over on his back he could have unloaded it directly to his face… point blank, likely… possibly ending the fight? But then I have never been in that situation… using or receiving pepper spray.

I do know if someone’s pointing a pistol at me and telling me not to move or I will be shot, I’d probably listen!

quote:

Originally posted by cparktd:
He had pepper spray and used it from behind the thief… When the thief rolled over on his back he could have unloaded it directly to his face… point blank, likely… possibly ending the fight? But then I have never been in that situation… using or receiving pepper spray.

This is what likely lead to the eventual outcome IMO. Having been through Ft. Leonard Wood's gas chamber and having been accidentally hit with bear spray in the past, I can say that your body has one response to both: GET AWAY FROM IT! This likely lead to the the guy fighting more, and his unfortunate demise inflicted by the mall cop.

I would not want to be a security guard. I do not think this guy should have been a security guard. From his weeping and talking after shooting the thief, he clearly did not put enough thought or training into what force is justifiable under what circumstances. From the video it seemed like he was a passenger along for the ride in this encounter, not someone who was controlling the situation and considering his actions. It is pretty obvious that he was very clear that he had screwed up and been along for a ride that took him somewhere he knew he shouldn’t have gone. The earlier poster who mentioned two lives wasted is spot on.

quote:

Originally posted by konata88:
Thanks sigmonkey, that helps. I've been trying to better understand the legal defense aspects (not so much the should I / shouldn't I). Its roots in common law and especially the applicability in protecting 3rd party property (ie - neighbor's or place of employment). Since reading about it, I've been academically curious about the basis that allows for a person to protect his 3rd party / neighbor's property from burglary.

There are some similarities & parallels to the Joe Horn shooting incident in Pasadena, TX from 2007.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...shooting_controversy

https://www.backwoodshome.com/...e-matter-of-joe-horn

Horn unnecessarily confronted two burglars leaving his neighbor's property and felt threatened enough to shoot them when they set foot on his yard, b/c Castle Doctrine.

I tell everyone, if you shoot someone in SD, be prepared to deal w/ three courts: the court of criminal law, the court of civil law, and the court of public opinion.

Horn was no-billed in criminal court. He avoided a civil lawsuit, b/c the thieves he shot were illegal aliens w/ no one to sue on their behalf. As for the court of public opinion, he's a pariah and was forced to move from his 'castle'.

I admit, I grew up in an unusual culture*, but why do people care about what happens to criminals?

If they aren’t tortured/there isn’t a mistake, why care about the fate of those who attack others?

*very rural Texas, a long time ago. Very much a culture which has the “needs killing” idea.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^because the thief is still a human being and not every offense warrants lethal force. That threshold varies from person to person. For me, I believe I will be held accountable for my actions in this life. I believe that unless others and I are in danger of harm or peril, killing a criminal is immoral. I have never had to do it, but the decision, even if reflexive, to kill another human being is grave and consequential.

Point of Florida clarity.

People often assume that deadly force is available in Florida to stop the commission of a "forcible felony," and this is true, with one caveat; the forcible felony must also include a risk to an individual. It does not apply if an individual is not threatened.

For example, if someone tries to steal your car in your driveway, and you are standing next to it, and they threaten you with death or serious bodily harm, you can lethal force them.

On the other hand, if you are down the street talking to a neighbor, and you see someone stealing your car, you can't shoot them from your neighbor's driveway. You are not threatened, you can't shoot, even though grand theft auto is a felony.

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.

The takeaway here is that Florida does not allow the use of lethal force in defense of property if a person is not in danger of life or serious injury.

quote:

Originally posted by jljones:

quote:

Originally posted by Beancooker:
Probably wouldn’t if I waxed someone over some fucking wheels.

If they came at you with an ASP, it wouldn’t have been “shooting them over wheels”.

Yes, but sneaking out the side door with a firearm to confront some people stealing my wheels on a car that is fully insured with a $0 deductible on comprehensive may not be the wisest idea.

The point I guess I was making is similar to what Para has said and what darthfuster said above.

Had I confronted the burglars and they pulled out the asp, I would have had every right to defend myself. I would also have to live with the fact that I took someone’s life, which could have been avoided. That’s the point I am trying to make. Even if the person deserves it, having to live with the fact you took another person’s life, I don’t think would be easy.

I lost count of how many times I watched around truck delivery
Guards walking too and from the trucks with
A canvas bag in one hand and a handgun in the other .
Unholstered with the finger on a trigger.
While
Living in AZ.

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
My opinion is any security guard who carries lethal weapons, should undergo the same training as a sworn LEO..

In Ohio, it's a 20hr course. I think it's just firearms, 12 hrs class, 8 hrs range.

I don't even know if they teach laws.

I don't have the picture anymore, but when I went to pick up my daughter after work one night from Dominoes, her coworker's security guard boyfriend was there waiting as well. This moron had a Taurus G2C in a weird clip holster with an extended mag sticking out. I asked him how do you get around doorways and tables?

Until absolutely no one profits from criminal activity,
There will be criminal activity.

That includes insurance companies, police, lawyers, hospitals,
Politicians, manufacturing .

We need more Indian store owners with those big canes to beat the shit out of shoplifters. Hurts like a bitch but isn't deadly. Perhaps we can start a business important canes from Singapore. Those really sting.

quote:

Originally posted by Beancooker:
He shot a guy over Halloween costumes. The guy seemed to resist, but seemed to just want to get away.

I don’t condone anyone stealing, but taking a life over less than a hundred bucks worth of Halloween costumes seems a tad bit extreme.

Sounds like he is sobbing at the end, and he is regretting his decisions.

It looked like the thief didn't just go into the store and steal goods, he attacked a customer and took the bag out of her hands as she was leaving the store

So in theory, was he defending someone who was assaulted vs protecting store property. She had bought and paid for it, the property was hers, since the guy didn't enter the store to take merchandise. Assault has many definitions so Imagine his legal defense will be that he was helping a woman who was assaulted.

Not sure how that plays out, either way he's certainly got a legal challenge, this is shades of Zimmerman where one action ended up with the death of another and a huge outcry over it, although Treyvon Martin was black, which is the only reason the Zimmerman story went viral.

quote:

Years ago I had wheels stolen off my car, in my driveway.

That happened to my 79 Grand Prix while downtown at a bar, some little shits stole the wire wheel baskets off the car. I was hot, took a bit to calm me down and felt the way you did. Theft of your property isn't just 'oh well shit's gone" it's an assault on people mentally.

After that and a break in at my townhouse is when I started carry and bought my first 1911...