Father hits naked boyfriend in daughters bedroom, now the DAD is facing charges?

[MicroBalrog]

Let's see, here.

We don't know what the father saw when he came into that room, except that he saw his daughter and some fellow being nekkid. He says he thought she was in some form of danger.

If the boy really was visiting her on a regular basis, I doubt she would show signs of fear or discomfort that would lead the father to such a conclusion. So, if your daughter is in a room with a boy her own age, they're both naked, and she's not screaming for help or obviously terrified shitless, is it a reasonable assumption to think 'Hey! She's being raped!'

The boy was taken to the hospital where doctors closed a head wound with staples.

He hit the young man in the head with a steel pipe.

Had a street thug hit someone in the head with a steel pipe, you'd be demanding he be imprisoned.

Whether or not he was deliberately trying to kill him would only matter as to the point of what to charge him with.

Regardless, a crime has been committed.

Throw the book at him.

[De Selby]

Oh, yeah, I'd also like to see the story where it says he tried to kill the kid.  One certainly couldn't get that from the OP.  Especially since he was charged with aggravated battery, not attempted murder.  

He used lethal force on the kid.  Banging someone on the head with a metal pipe and causing a split scalp is the sort of thing any reasonable person knows can result in death.

I suppose there are folks who shoot others and then claim they were just trying to hurt them too, but the law doesn't see things that way-same thing goes for an assault with any other deadly weapon.

But you said he was beating him to death.   You also said he was attempting to kill someone.  And you simply have no business making such claims, when you don't know the facts.  

Maybe you can highlight the part where I said he was "beating him to death."  What I did say was that hitting someone with a metal pipe is no joke-it is lethal force, and it can very easily kill or maim someone.  You don't need the newspapers to tell you that, and it's one detail that is clear in the article: He did hit the kid in the head with a metal pipe, and the kid went to the hospital for it.

So whatever he was imagining inside his head, he actually used deadly force on the boy.  He's lucky he didn't kill him, just like someone who "shoots to wound" or whatever one might call it is lucky if the person they use deadly force on does not die.

I have every business making that claim because the fact is not in dispute-the boy was hit over the head with a metal pipe, which is a clear instance of the use of deadly force in such a way that the result is simply accident-it's a good thing the boy didn't die, but certainly if he had that would be an obvious and foreseeable consequence of the act.

You also don't know whether the father was capable of "ejecting" the younger man without the use of a weapon.  He may have been handicapped.  

It would not have mattered-as evidenced by the fact that the cops, who did go there and get all the facts, actually charged him with a crime that is, in terms of deeds committed, identical to an attempted murder.

There is no right to use deadly force to eject people who are invited into your home by your teenage daughter, to be specific.  Not only that, the law doesn't recognize or protect people who do such things.

[K Frame]

Only link I can find in this thread is a VERY sketchy article.

The article infers, however, that the man did not know the person he saw in his daughter's room (Note the word STRANGER).

If that is the case, the Father didn't know the kid in question, and if it is true he didn't know his daughter had a girlfriend, it's reasonable to assume that he was acting on the belief that he was protecting his daughter from someone who was, or was attempting to, assault her. It's an affirmative defense under law "I had to act because I believed that X was going to happen if I didn't."

Florida law allows the use of lethal force to protect another individual. Florida also has the castle doctrine; the man was under no obligation, legal or otherwise, to retreat from someone whom he viewed as an intruder in his home.

It would appear, though, that there's a lot more going on in this situation than what is being reported here.


Given the exceptionally spotty details, the lack of any other links that might shed more light on this, and the ungodly amount of speculation, assumption, and nonsequitor leaps of faith that I've seen so far from BOTH camps, I'm locking this thread.

If anything more surfaces, by all means, start a new thread.

[Perd Hapley]

September 22, 2008

Father who found teen in daughter's bedroom, struck him with pipe, won't be prosecuted

By KARI COBHAM
Staff Writer

The State Attorneys Office announced today it would not file charges against the Deltona father who struck a naked boy with a metal pipe in his teenage daughters bedroom.

Raul Colon, 45, told investigators that about 4:15 a.m. on Sept. 11 he heard strange noises in the house and armed himself with a metal pipe, according to a Volusia County sheriffs report.

When he saw the nude stranger standing on his daughters bed, he hit 15-year-old Lucas Contreres and chased him through house and outside before calling 9-1-1, the report states.

Colon did not know at the time that Contreres was his 15-year-old daughters boyfriend and that hed been sneaking into the home for more than a year, the report states.

State Attorney John Tanner said today that a father has the right to "defend his family and home against what he believes to be a burglar or intruder into that home," with reasonable force.

Colon could not be reached.

http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/breakingnews/teen092208.htm

[Jamisjockey]

Colon could not be reached.

 


As an aside.....I gotta say....certain members of this board who went off on the guy and the posters who defended him were wrong wrong wrong.....

[Perd Hapley]

What, you think people should refrain from making judgments when they don't have facts?  It's people like you that are ruining the internets!!   

[Fjolnirsson]

Comment withdrawn by author due to entirely warranted, but unproductive level of snark....

[K Frame]

Hey! Lokkit dis!

The magik of murgid treds!


OK, the prosecutor has spoken. The STRANGER who was sneaking into Mr. Colon's house and apparently getting naked with Mr. Colon's daughter (well, to be honest, it does not say that the girl was naked...) WAS a legitimate target for a pipe upside the skull. To that I say good.

What's that tell us?

It tells us that Castle Doctrine is apparently alive and well in Florida and protects the homeowner from prosecution when he finds, and beats with a pipe, a naked stranger in his minor daughter's bedroom.

It tells us that a lethal force application is legal when the homeowner reasonably believes that he is protecting his home and family. That's right, killing someone can be perfectly legal! Imagine that.

The true travesty here is the fact that the police arrested the guy in the first place, and apparently didn't arrested Lord Godiva for trespassing.

[K Frame]

What, you think people should refrain from making judgments when they don't have facts?  It's people like you that are ruining the internets!!  

Oh, come now, Fistful.

This is the inTARDnet.

All the tards gather in the net, and do what tards generally do...

[Jamisjockey]

What, you think people should refrain from making judgments when they don't have facts?  It's people like you that are ruining the internets!!  

Oh, come now, Fistful.

This is the inTARDnet.

All the tards gather in the net, and do what tards generally do...

Pure solid gold there!

[lupinus]

Ahem

"Officer, I came home and found my daughter in her room in a naked boy and feared she was being attacked"

What my missing?   

Course, I prefer the world where beating the snot out of junior when you found him diddling your princess, alas that world seems gone.

[Gewehr98]

Wonder how the little princess is going to get her next fix of Romeo Au Natural before, say, her 40th birthday?

[Hawkmoon]

The true travesty here is the fact that the police arrested the guy in the first place, and apparently didn't arrested Lord Godiva for trespassing.

Roger that. I wonder if they even mention the concept of "castle doctrine" in police academy?

[roo_ster]

And all was right in the world...for one short moment.

[De Selby]

Yeah folks, notice the key line in here:

State Attorney John Tanner said today that a father has the right to "defend his family and home against what he believes to be a burglar or intruder into that home," with reasonable force.

That is the finding that gets him off, not "Hey, I can beat any naked dude I see just because I presume it's bad." 

I stand by my statement:

There is no right to use deadly force to eject people who are invited into your home by your teenage daughter, to be specific.  Not only that, the law doesn't recognize or protect people who do such things.

A finding that you reasonably believed the person to be a burglar or intruder is what gets you off on castle doctrine claims, not this fig leaf business of "I can just smack anyone I find in my house if I don't know what he's doing there."

[lacoochee]

"I can just smack anyone I find in my house if I don't know  what he's doing there."

Um, in Florida that's exactly when you do get to smack them in the head.  That's how the Castle Doctrine works here, if you are in my home, it doesn't matter if you are dressed in a nun's habit, I can use deadly force because the presumption is that you are here to harm me or my family.

Seriously, do you hand intruders in your home a questionaire as to their intentions at that moment?  You give up a lot when you do not attack right off the bat, you start reacting to the intruder and you will end up dead.  You have to make them react to you, you have to take the initiative immediately and change the game.  They have had all the time in the world to psych themselves up for attacking you, you will be starting from dead cold when you walk into that room.

[K Frame]

"There is no right to use deadly force to eject people who are invited into your home by your teenage daughter, to be specific.  Not only that, the law doesn't recognize or protect people who do such things."

Actually, you're wrong.

Castle Doctrine, and possibly other, Florida laws give the father that right.

First, the daughter is a minor child, her ability to offer blanket 24x7 access to anyone whom she chooses is extremely limited, especially if her intent is to conceal the "guest's" presence and identity from her legal guardians and controllers of the domicile.

Second, the "invitation" was extended with the intention of it being, and remaining, a secret; the father apparently had no knowledge of it.

Third, the "invitation" was intended to be exercised at a time, in a place, and in a manner that reasonable people could conclude that a sexual assault was occurring.

All that adds up to this supposed invitation not existing as far as the law is concerned.

It's called an affirmative defense under law.

It's not really that difficult to figure out or understand.

Unless, of course, your only purpose in this conversation is to be troll by continuously arguing inanities, nonsequitors, and chimeras in the face of black and white law.

Now....

I'm not sure if anyone has quoted the applicable sections of Florida's Castle law...

So, let me do so, and get this out of the way.

"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.


Go back to the three part list I laid out above.

[De Selby]

Actually, you're wrong.

Castle Doctrine, and possibly other, Florida laws give the father that right.

No they do not, and no, this is not "inane trolling"-it is apparent from the statute and is cited in the latest article as the reason charges were dropped, ie, that he believed the naked boyfriend was actually a burglar or something similar.

You are missing the "and" in your citation of the statute-a) and b) all must apply for the affirmative defense to succeed.

Highlighted properly:

(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.

Note that a) requires "unlawfully and forcefully entering", or "removed or was attempting to remove another against the person's will"....

Which is why a finding that the father reasonably believed the person to be a burglar would clearly yield a defense, but believing the naked person to be a boyfriend there without his permission would not.

Your list is fine, but it presents factors that are the same as what I was listing-a reasonable belief that a forcible crime were occurring, like a burglarly or a sexual assault, is necessary to sustain the defense.

Simply saying "Hey, I didn't let the guy in!"  or "I didn't know what he was doing at all" will not.  You need to be able to show a reasonable belief that something more than an invitation by your teenage daughter was what led to the person's presence in your home.

[Perd Hapley]

Just remember.  Even though shootinstudent was utterly and completely wrong, he reserves the right to look down on the rest of us, and lecture haughtily that he was right all along.

[De Selby]

Just remember.  Even though shootinstudent was utterly and completely wrong, he reserves the right to look down on the rest of us, and lecture haughtily that he was right all along.

It's that welcoming atmosphere that makes us all who we are on armedpolitesociety.com.

[Manedwolf]

Just remember.  Even though shootinstudent was utterly and completely wrong, he reserves the right to look down on the rest of us, and lecture haughtily that he was right all along.

It's that welcoming atmosphere that makes us all who we are on armedpolitesociety.com.

Well, stop excusing the inexcusable with silly distortions of facts, and people will stop reacting to you that way.

[Perd Hapley]

Best case, he didn't have a clue, and just decided to attack the naked guy.

Fact of the matter is, in either situation, he is in the wrong-you can't attempt to kill someone for being with your daughter, just like you can't attempt to kill someone for being in your house when you have no idea or indication whether there is some violent felonious purpose.

I hope you do not ever use force without having any idea of what the person you're using force on is doing on your property-you will pay for it, just like this guy is now paying, and that is true in any jurisdiction in America. It's near universal here in our country that you need a pretty decent reason to attempt or complete a homicide without suffering criminal penalties.

ss,

Embrace the fail, bro.  What don't kill you just means you have to eat crow and move on. 

[Balog]

Just remember.  Even though shootinstudent was utterly and completely wrong, he reserves the right to look down on the rest of us, and lecture haughtily that he was right all along.

It's that welcoming atmosphere that makes us all who we are on armedpolitesociety.com.

I don't think "welcoming" is an appropriate term here. You have a long history of taking wildly inflammatory positions based on the most flimsy of logic. That's trolling in my book, and I think the fact that you haven't been beaten with the ban stick like you were a naked teen after Mike Irwin's (thankfully non-existant) vestal daughter is testimony to the mods extreme patience. Which I for one hope is running out.

[Perd Hapley]

I think the fact that you haven't been beaten with the ban stick like you were a naked teen after Mike Irwin's (thankfully non-existant) vestal daughter is testimony to the mods extreme patience.

With all due respect to shootinstudent:   

[De Selby]

Just remember.  Even though shootinstudent was utterly and completely wrong, he reserves the right to look down on the rest of us, and lecture haughtily that he was right all along.

It's that welcoming atmosphere that makes us all who we are on armedpolitesociety.com.

I don't think "welcoming" is an appropriate term here. You have a long history of taking wildly inflammatory positions based on the most flimsy of logic. That's trolling in my book, and I think the fact that you haven't been beaten with the ban stick like you were a naked teen after Mike Irwin's (thankfully non-existant) vestal daughter is testimony to the mods extreme patience. Which I for one hope is running out.

That was sort of the point there, chief.