1911Forum banner
1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,142 Posts

·
Administrator
Joined
·
75,924 Posts
I like how the news media wasted no time letting us know that one of the participants in this mess was a concealed weapons permit holder.

He'll be lucky if he doesn't face charges or end up being sued by the family of the hit-and-runner.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,381 Posts
He'll be lucky if he doesn't face charges or end up being sued by the family of the hit-and-runner.
So far not seeing anything that tells me that he shouldn't be charged or sued. Her hit didn't injure him or even knocked him off the bike, according to the article. Best we can assume, some material damage to the bike. They go to her home and I am sure that three dudes vs one woman qualifies for the discrepancy of force. Who the hell knows why she came out with a gun but Florida is a stand your ground / castle doctrine state. Depending on where exactly on her property or in relationship to it they were, she quite possible had legal grounds to shoot them.
 
  • Like
Reactions: el-senor

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,034 Posts
So far not seeing anything that tells me that he shouldn't be charged or sued. Her hit didn't injure him or even knocked him off the bike, according to the article. Best we can assume, some material damage to the bike. They go to her home and I am sure that three dudes vs one woman qualifies for the discrepancy of force. Who the hell knows why she came out with a gun but Florida is a stand your ground / castle doctrine state. Depending on where exactly on her property or in relationship to it they were, she quite possible had legal grounds to shoot them.
Excellent point. He could have reported her vehicle tag and she would have been charged with [vehicle] ADW and probably leaving the scene of an accident. Following her home was not a good idea.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
840 Posts
Excellent point. He could have reported her vehicle tag and she would have been charged with [vehicle] ADW and probably leaving the scene of an accident. Following her home was not a good idea.
I will play devil's advocate here and say that taking the tag number and reporting the person to police after the fact is going to get you exactly jack and **** these days. Maybe I'm overly cynical but I honestly don't believe that the majority of PD's would do ANYTHING in this situation (regarding the car hitting the bike I mean) if I just call and give a tag number, because nobody was actually injured and I just don't think they can be bothered with "little stuff" any more.

I have personally had a couple of occasions where I witnessed a relatively minor crime like this (a crime nevertheless) and reported it, and never heard a thing back.

Following the person and letting police know that you know exactly where the person is and that you are waiting near the location for them is probably the only way to actually get them to respond/show up/do anything.

Now, if it were me, I would have followed the person home, moved off a decent distance away, THEN called the police. I would not confront the person myself or in any way go near their property unless asked to by the cops. If the cops decide they don't care, then I just chock it up to "**** happens". Not worth getting into a damn gun fight over.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,486 Posts
So far not seeing anything that tells me that he shouldn't be charged or sued. Her hit didn't injure him or even knocked him off the bike, according to the article. Best we can assume, some material damage to the bike. They go to her home and I am sure that three dudes vs one woman qualifies for the discrepancy of force. Who the hell knows why she came out with a gun but Florida is a stand your ground / castle doctrine state. Depending on where exactly on her property or in relationship to it they were, she quite possible had legal grounds to shoot them.
I don't necessarily agree.

...where she went inside and re-emerged with a handgun, which police said she pointed at Derr.
What do we always tell defenders to do when they're at home? Stay inside, do not go toward the fight. Why? Because if you go to the fight, you might just lose it. So, let's examine the castle doctrine:

776.013 Home protection; use or threatened use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person who is ina dwelling or residence in which the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and use or threaten to use:

(a) Nondeadly 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; or

(b) Deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use 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.

(2) 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 or threatening to use 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 or threatened 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 or threatens to use defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.

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

(a) The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened 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 threatened; or

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

(d) The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened 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 or threatening to use force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

(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.

Important bits emphasized.

So, according to the statute to claim self defense under the castle doctrine you'd have to be in your residence, reasonably believe you're at risk of imminent bodily injury, death, or forcible felony. In order for that to be true, 2 A and/or B must also be true. However, there are exceptions to the castle doctrine outlined in section 3. The specific bits that caught my eye are when using force against a person with a legal right to be at the property or the person using force is engaged in crime/using the property for furtherance of a crime, they lose the right to claim self defense under the castle doctrine. Note that castle doctrine applies to being inside your dwelling, not simply on your property so I see 3 different ways she may have given up the right to claim defense under the castle doctrine itself.

You can argue that one can't reasonably claim self defense when they committed the crime of fleeing the scene of an accident and the person they hit and/or witnesses to the crime followed them home. If it were just property damage, then it's only a second degree misdemeanor but that's still a crime. Those 3 were probably well within the bounds of the law to follow her until she stopped. The fact that she happened to stop at her house isn't like touching home base in a game of hide & seek, that's not an automatic "I win, you lose. Go away now." Assuming they were outside the residence, on the phone with police(confirmed in the article), reporting details without making threats or trying to break inside, they may have been well within their right to be present and waiting on police arrival.

Further, just because they were at her home does not mean she is the only individual with a right to self defense, nor that any of those 3 gave up their right to self defense. They also have the right to stand their ground, and no duty to retreat unless somewhere along the way by their own actions they lost those rights. This is where the waters get muddy, because now the law has to figure out who did or did not have the right to defend themselves in that moment. Did she lose the right to claim defense by hit & run? Did these 3 individuals do or say something in the interim period between the time of the accident and arriving at her house that would cause them to lose their right to self defense? Did she escalate from second degree misdemeanor to forcible felony by first retreating into her dwelling, then coming back out armed to confront/assault these individuals with a weapon? Did she live in a house with a yard, a town house with almost no yard, or in an apartment? Was she shot at her door, or at the end of her driveway? Where were each of these 3 individuals that followed her home? Were they on her property, or in the street? What were all involved doing at the time? What were they saying?

Given the information in the article, the Florida statutes I've looked into, and nothing else...I can see why they haven't charged him - yet. There are holes in the story that we aren't privy to. More information is needed than the little bits high lighted in the article to answer the questions I've posed.

Edit: removed piece from the beginning mostly due to redundancy.

Edit2: Clarity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,381 Posts
Pretty sure that your porch is still your dwelling, no?

I am not defending her decision to get out. Probably was stupid. Maybe her 11 yo was home and she intended not to let three guys make their ways in.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
461 Posts
It says she deliberately hit him…. Refuses to pull over. Leads them to her house. Then she comes out of the house with a gun and points it at them and says “ three men” and “you followed me” Sounds more like she was the aggressor with anger issues vs defending her home.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,486 Posts
Pretty sure that your porch is still your dwelling, no?

I am not defending her decision to get out. Probably was stupid. Maybe her 11 yo was home and she intended not to let three guys make their ways in.
It does specify 'including attached porch' so that does check out.

I suppose there was plenty of stupid for all involved. I wouldn't expect a casual gun owner to grasp the finer points of tactical home defense, but I would expect the group of guys to be intelligent enough not to trespass. Which brings us back around to 'where were each of these individual standing?' Because if they were physically on her property, arguably even just standing in her yard, it probably weakens Derr's claim to self defense.
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Top