Author Topic: Father hits naked boyfriend in daughters bedroom, now the DAD is facing charges?  (Read 52479 times)

The Annoyed Man

  • New Member
  • Posts: 1
WTF?   Underage boy in underage daughters room, guy is naked and dad whacks him with a pipe and the DAD is in trouble?

What am I missing here?   

Quote

DELTONA, Fla.   An angry Deltona father whacked his teenage daughter's boyfriend with a metal pipe after finding the boy naked in his daughter's room.

Authorities say the father, 45, didn't even know his daughter had a boyfriend or that the youngster had been sneaking into the home for more than a year.

When he heard noises coming from his daughter's bedroom Thursday morning and saw a stranger standing naked on the girl's bed, he swung a metal pipe. He then chased the teen out the front door and called police.

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

The father was charged with aggravated battery on a child and bonded out on $10,000.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,422181,00.html

Manedwolf

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,516
Once upon a time, that would have been a double barrel.

Matthew Carberry

  • Formerly carebear
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,281
  • Fiat justitia, pereat mundus
As far as the law is concerned, he shouldn't have used a pipe, as there was no threat of harm to himself or his daughter.

Locking the kid outside the house in the condition you found him, and turning on all the exterior lights maybe setting off your car alarm accidentally to boot, and then calling his parents, or not, might have not gotten charges.

"Not all unwise laws are unconstitutional laws, even where constitutional rights are potentially involved." - Eugene Volokh

"As for affecting your movement, your Rascal should be able to achieve the the same speeds no matter what holster rig you are wearing."

The Annoyed Man

  • New Member
  • Posts: 1
Quote
As far as the law is concerned, he shouldn't have used a pipe, as there was no threat of harm to himself or his daughter.

He didn't know who the kid was, just some naked guy standing over his daughter.

That's attempted sexual assault in most places seems to me.

Says he "saw a stranger standing naked on the girl's bed".

Home intruder?  Rapist?  Who knows what. 


Fjolnirsson

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,231
  • The Anti-Claus
As far as the law is concerned, he shouldn't have used a pipe, as there was no threat of harm to himself or his daughter.

Locking the kid outside the house in the condition you found him, and turning on all the exterior lights maybe setting off your car alarm accidentally to boot, and then calling his parents, or not, might have not gotten charges.



So sorry, but I would've shot him right there. Naked, unknown male standing on her bed? The article doesn't say, but I am assuming the girl was also on the bed. If so, bang.
If not, if the boy was on the bed alone, yeah, I'd have called the police, maybe tossed him out on his ear.
Hi.

De Selby

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,838
Yeah, I'm gonna say the pipe is key-you can't beat people to death on the spot for being your daughter's boyfriend, as much as some might want to.
"Human existence being an hallucination containing in itself the secondary hallucinations of day and night (the latter an insanitary condition of the atmosphere due to accretions of black air) it ill becomes any man of sense to be concerned at the illusory approach of the supreme hallucination known as death."

280plus

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 19,131
  • Ever get that sinking feeling?
I am SOOOO glad my 17 yo still likes horses better than boys.  laugh
Avoid cliches like the plague!

Matthew Carberry

  • Formerly carebear
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,281
  • Fiat justitia, pereat mundus
I can see the "shoot him right there position", in theory, but that does not appear to be the father's position.

Based on the limited amount of info in the article, and applying the thinking of the non-self-defense minded majority:

He saw a kid about his daughter's age standing naked in her bedroom, apparently not doing anything threatening and with her apparently neither struggling nor screaming and made the more rational judgement that this little punk was sexing up his daughter.

I assume he hit him with a pipe in the belief that a kid was taking liberties with his little angel, not in fear she was being ravished.  A father's righteous wrath, not concern about a "crime".
"Not all unwise laws are unconstitutional laws, even where constitutional rights are potentially involved." - Eugene Volokh

"As for affecting your movement, your Rascal should be able to achieve the the same speeds no matter what holster rig you are wearing."

Sindawe

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,938
  • Vashneesht
Quote
Yeah, I'm gonna say the pipe is key-you can't beat people to death on the spot for being your daughter's boyfriend...

Perhaps not.  But in those States still civillized one can beat a person unknown as needed when in one's home unbidden.  And if said daughter is minor, adult parent determines the state of bidden-ness, not the daughter.

Quote
I am SOOOO glad my 17 yo still likes horses better than boys.

EWWWWWWW!!!  Thats just wrong.  grin

Quote
He saw a kid about his daughter's age standing naked in her bedroom, apparently not doing anything threatening...

His presence as in one unknown to householder is alone enough to make him a threat.

Damn-fool kids.  When I was his age, I made darn sure my g-friend's parents knew who I was, and did NOT disrobe in THEIR homes.
I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.

Matthew Carberry

  • Formerly carebear
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,281
  • Fiat justitia, pereat mundus
As I said, I can see the pure self-defense model theory, but in practice, in reality, is it more likely to be underage consensual sex or kids fooling around?

Given that it is a naked 14 year old, who's only weapon at hand may still be hairless, there may be time to establish exactly what is going on before opening fire or swinging away.

Once you establish Don Juan was just making moves on the princess, there's plenty of time to shoot or beat him then.  grin

Again, we'll have to see what the father's take was.  I'm sure if he actually thought it was a rape in progress, the kid would be dead with more than one blow to the head.

"Not all unwise laws are unconstitutional laws, even where constitutional rights are potentially involved." - Eugene Volokh

"As for affecting your movement, your Rascal should be able to achieve the the same speeds no matter what holster rig you are wearing."

De Selby

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,838
Quote
Yeah, I'm gonna say the pipe is key-you can't beat people to death on the spot for being your daughter's boyfriend...

Perhaps not.  But in those States still civillized one can beat a person unknown as needed when in one's home unbidden.  And if said daughter is minor, adult parent determines the state of bidden-ness, not the daughter.

This isn't a case about the state of the boy's permission to be on the premises, though-I don't think there's any question the father had a right to eject the kid.

The issue is the means he chose-you can't kill people for being invited into your home by another resident. 

Hitting someone with a pipe is a whole lot more serious than a spanking or an angry thrashing.  I don't believe, for example, that anyone would think it just in this country to put a kid in a wheel chair for the rest of his life, or saddle his family with caring for someone with severe mental disabilities, because someone else's daughter chose to have him over for an illicit encounter.

"Human existence being an hallucination containing in itself the secondary hallucinations of day and night (the latter an insanitary condition of the atmosphere due to accretions of black air) it ill becomes any man of sense to be concerned at the illusory approach of the supreme hallucination known as death."

Jamisjockey

  • Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 26,580
  • Your mom sends me care packages
Quote
Yeah, I'm gonna say the pipe is key-you can't beat people to death on the spot for being your daughter's boyfriend...

Perhaps not.  But in those States still civillized one can beat a person unknown as needed when in one's home unbidden.  And if said daughter is minor, adult parent determines the state of bidden-ness, not the daughter.

This isn't a case about the state of the boy's permission to be on the premises, though-I don't think there's any question the father had a right to eject the kid.

The issue is the means he chose-you can't kill people for being invited into your home by another resident. 

Hitting someone with a pipe is a whole lot more serious than a spanking or an angry thrashing.  I don't believe, for example, that anyone would think it just in this country to put a kid in a wheel chair for the rest of his life, or saddle his family with caring for someone with severe mental disabilities, because someone else's daughter chose to have him over for an illicit encounter.




Um, lets see:
Dad had no idea who naked intruder was.  Naked intruder is in his daughter's bedroom.  Um, yeah, I'd have used force to evict him from the house, too. 
Come on down off that high horse and actually read the OP for once.
JD

 The price of a lottery ticket seems to be the maximum most folks are willing to risk toward the dream of becoming a one-percenter. “Robert Hollis”

De Selby

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,838

Um, lets see:
Dad had no idea who naked intruder was.  Naked intruder is in his daughter's bedroom.  Um, yeah, I'd have used force to evict him from the house, too. 
Come on down off that high horse and actually read the OP for once.

Yeah, I read it-says he battered the kid with a metal pipe.  Worst case scenario, he knew what was going on and was upset that his little girl was doing this.  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.

"Human existence being an hallucination containing in itself the secondary hallucinations of day and night (the latter an insanitary condition of the atmosphere due to accretions of black air) it ill becomes any man of sense to be concerned at the illusory approach of the supreme hallucination known as death."

Perd Hapley

  • Superstar of the Internet
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 61,449
  • My prepositions are on/in
Some of you should supply links to the news stories you're reading about this.  From the certainty some of you are displaying, I sure hope you're not going solely off that skimpy little story linked in the OP. 

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. 
"Doggies are angel babies!" -- my wife

Fjolnirsson

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,231
  • The Anti-Claus
Quote
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.

Nonsense. If I find someone in my house whom I don't know, he's naked, and he's in my daughter's room with her, he will leave with holes in his body, end of story. The mere  act of entering ones house naked and uninvited indicates a disposition toward acts of a felonious nature. Further, if I believe he has entered by force(which I would, if I did not know him, as I lock my doors at all times), that means I believe he is currently in the process of felony illegal entry, which means I have the right to use whatever force necessary to stop that felony from progressing. The key here is to ask what a "reasonable" person would do in this case. "Reasonable" where you live might be different than where I live. I know my response would be fairly typical for this area.

Now, if I knew the kid was there through consensual activities with my daughter, I'd handle it a little differently. But if I find a naked man standing over my daughter, I am not going to stop to play 20 questions.
Hi.

Sindawe

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,938
  • Vashneesht
Quote
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.

In the still partially civillized State of Colorado, the contrary hold true.

Quote
The general assembly hereby recognizes that the citizens of Colorado have a right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 18-1-704, any occupant of a dwelling is justified in using any degree of physical force, including deadly physical force, against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, and when the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry, or is committing or intends to commit a crime against a person or property in addition to the uninvited entry, and when the occupant reasonably believes that such other person might use any physical force, no matter how slight, against any occupant.

Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from criminal prosecution for the use of such force.

Any occupant of a dwelling using physical force, including deadly physical force, in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section shall be immune from any civil liability for injuries or death resulting from the use of such force.

Source: http://www.jeffco.us/jeffco/sheriff_uploads/revised_statutes.htm

Father, unknowning that his 'princess' has a boyfriend and that they are on intimate terms, discovers said boyfriend in the room of his 'princess' and in a state of undress.  It is reasonable for the father to come to the conclusion that unclad male is in his house illegally and bent on nefarious intent with his 'princess'.  So in Colorado father may beat unclad male with what ever force is neccesary to preserve the sanctity of his 'princess'.

Quote
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...

I may have to pay legal counsel for their services, but our statute and prior cases make it quite clear that favor does NOT lay with those who are in my home unbidden. 
I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do.

The Annoyed Man

  • New Member
  • Posts: 1
Dad knew it was the boyfriend. Daughter let him in repeatedly without permission. Dad was pissed as only a Newyor Rican can be when his daughter is banging in his house. He shouldn't have hit him with the pipe. He should have held him there just like he found him until the deputies arrived and then had him arrested for statutory rape.

Jim

DustinD

  • I have a title
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 919
  • I have a personal text message
Quote
The mere  act of entering ones house naked and uninvited
I thought he entered clothed and invited by the daughter. I don't know that for a fact though.
"I don't always shoot defenceless women in the face, but when I do, I prefer H-S Precision.

Stay bloodthirsty, my friends."

                       - Lon Horiuchi

Fjolnirsson

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,231
  • The Anti-Claus
Quote
The mere  act of entering ones house naked and uninvited
I thought he entered clothed and invited by the daughter. I don't know that for a fact though.

I was speaking from the father's viewpoint. The daughter let the guy in, but if I found a naked man in my house whom I don't know, I would not assume he was let in by my daughter.
Hi.

De Selby

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,838
Some of you should supply links to the news stories you're reading about this.  From the certainty some of you are displaying, I sure hope you're not going solely off that skimpy little story linked in the OP. 

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. 

Hitting someone with a metal pipe over the head is lethal force-an aggravated battery is usually only different from an attempted murder based on what was in your head at the time, not on what you actually did.

"Human existence being an hallucination containing in itself the secondary hallucinations of day and night (the latter an insanitary condition of the atmosphere due to accretions of black air) it ill becomes any man of sense to be concerned at the illusory approach of the supreme hallucination known as death."

De Selby

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,838
Quote
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.

Nonsense. If I find someone in my house whom I don't know, he's naked, and he's in my daughter's room with her, he will leave with holes in his body, end of story. The mere  act of entering ones house naked and uninvited indicates a disposition toward acts of a felonious nature. Further, if I believe he has entered by force(which I would, if I did not know him, as I lock my doors at all times), that means I believe he is currently in the process of felony illegal entry, which means I have the right to use whatever force necessary to stop that felony from progressing. The key here is to ask what a "reasonable" person would do in this case. "Reasonable" where you live might be different than where I live. I know my response would be fairly typical for this area.

Now, if I knew the kid was there through consensual activities with my daughter, I'd handle it a little differently. But if I find a naked man standing over my daughter, I am not going to stop to play 20 questions.

Again, what you will do in this situation, and what the law will do in response, are two different things.  As confident as you are that you would not stop to play 20 questions, you should also prepare yourself for the game of 20 questions that the investigators will play with you afterwards, and I hope you aren't too committed to firearms ownership, because there's a real good chance you won't be allowed to own them if you actually do believe it's okay to just kill/attempt to kill a naked man in your house.

"Human existence being an hallucination containing in itself the secondary hallucinations of day and night (the latter an insanitary condition of the atmosphere due to accretions of black air) it ill becomes any man of sense to be concerned at the illusory approach of the supreme hallucination known as death."

De Selby

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 6,838

I may have to pay legal counsel for their services, but our statute and prior cases make it quite clear that favor does NOT lay with those who are in my home unbidden. 

Sindawe, I will highlight the key provisions that would be a problem in this scenario:

Quote
against another person when that other person has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling,

Being invited in by daughter is not usually an unlawful entry.

Then you must also have this:

Quote
the occupant has a reasonable belief that such other person has committed a crime in the dwelling in addition to the uninvited entry

ie, reasonable belief that the person is there to steal from you, that he might use physical force, etc etc.

"I didn't know what he was doing" will not fly under this or any other similar law.  You need circumstances that suggest something on the level of a burglary, ie, daughter screaming for help, boy in a mask, weapon in hand, broken glass, etc etc.  Just coming home and finding a naked dude in a room with one of your female relatives is not going to cut it, and that's why they're charging this father.

You need a reason to fall underneath castle doctrine statutes like this-naked teen in your daughter's bedroom is not going to supply reasonable belief that this was a criminal intrusion all by itself.  Do not rely on this snippet of legislation for your own protection, because it will not protect you....(Florida, where this guy is being charged with a crime, has basically the same law...something to consider)


"Human existence being an hallucination containing in itself the secondary hallucinations of day and night (the latter an insanitary condition of the atmosphere due to accretions of black air) it ill becomes any man of sense to be concerned at the illusory approach of the supreme hallucination known as death."

lacoochee

  • New Member
  • Posts: 42
Quote
"I didn't know what he was doing" will not fly under this or any other similar law.  You need circumstances that suggest something on the level of a burglary, ie, daughter screaming for help, boy in a mask, weapon in hand, broken glass, etc etc.  Just coming home and finding a naked dude in a room with one of your female relatives is not going to cut it, and that's why they're charging this father.

You need a reason to fall underneath castle doctrine statutes like this-naked teen in your daughter's bedroom is not going to supply reasonable belief that this was a criminal intrusion all by itself.  Do not rely on this snippet of legislation for your own protection, because it will not protect you....(Florida, where this guy is being charged with a crime, has basically the same law...something to consider)

Parts of this are just stupid, I personally was engaged to a girl who was raped by her brothers friend in her own bed.  Her father was in the house 50 feet away, he was/is? a Sergeant in the West Palm Beach department, she didn't scream she was so scared she didn't know what to do, it in fact took her 6 months to tell them what happened.  So his standing over her bed and her not screaming hardly constitutes consent, it may just constitute intense terror....   Personally, I would have shot, I would likely have felt bad about it later but given the time it takes to make the decision and the circumstances, I would have pulled the trigger and figured it out later.  The consequences of being wrong are just to great, meaning that he may well shoot you and then finish up with your other two daughters and wife before killing them all by setting them on fire.  Far stretched not really, kind of went down that way in New Hampshire recently....

Another interesting point I think this raises is in the area of the Florida Castle Doctrine, what constitutes consent to entry, can it be given by a 3 years old daughter for the purposes of sexual contact?  (Obviously absurd right?)  What about a 12 year old girl?  I suspect the answer has to be a person with their majority has to make the invitation for it to constitute a legal invitation to entry, in which case the "boyfriend" is epically lucky to be alive.
Deo Vindice

* "[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

Fjolnirsson

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,231
  • The Anti-Claus
Quote
Again, what you will do in this situation, and what the law will do in response, are two different things.  As confident as you are that you would not stop to play 20 questions, you should also prepare yourself for the game of 20 questions that the investigators will play with you afterwards, and I hope you aren't too committed to firearms ownership, because there's a real good chance you won't be allowed to own them if you actually do believe it's okay to just kill/attempt to kill a naked man in your house.

From the Oregon Revised Statutes:
161.219 Limitations on use of deadly physical force in defense of a person. Notwithstanding the provisions of ORS 161.209, a person is not justified in using deadly physical force upon another person unless the person reasonably believes that the other person is:
      (1) Committing or attempting to commit a felony involving the use or threatened imminent use of physical force against a person; or
      (2) Committing or attempting to commit a burglary in a dwelling; or
      (3) Using or about to use unlawful deadly physical force against a person. [1971 c.743 §23]

I see a naked man I don't know standing over my daughter, I assume he is attempting to rape her. Period. Bang.
If it's a boyfriend I have never met, well, that sucks. But again, the "reasonable person" is going to be drawn from my area, and I know what the majority of people here would say.

Now, if he was just standing in the room with her, well, thats another story, and I would let the cops handle it, or at most, toss him out on his ear.
Hi.

Fjolnirsson

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1,231
  • The Anti-Claus
In defense of my position, I offer the following news story. The link no longer worked for the original article, but I was able to pull it from the civilian self defense blog:
[url]http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/archives/2006_01_01_archive.html/url]

From the Miami Herald of January 26, 2006
Mom of 4 shoots 'naked' intruder

A woman shot a man in the stomach early Wednesday after he removed his clothes, entered her Lauderhill town house and refused to leave.

Michelle Carroll was upstairs in her Lauderhill town house when she heard her 7-year-old son yell that there was a man in the house.

Carroll rushed downstairs to see a naked man sitting on a chair in the first floor of the home, her family later said.

The man wouldn't leave, and she pulled the trigger of her handgun.

The bullet struck the man once in the stomach.

''She asked him to leave several times and then he wouldn't leave,'' said her cousin Lindey Carroll. ``He walked toward her, and she shot him.''

Someone inside the house called 911. The man ran and was outside the house when rescue workers arrived, police said.

The unidentified intruder was taken to Broward General Medical Center, where he was listed in stable condition late Wednesday, said Lauderhill police Lt. Tundra King.

Police would not release the man's name on Wednesday. Detectives were interviewing the man and were trying to speak to his relatives, King said.

Police said they don't know how the man got into the beige, two-story town house in the 5900 block of Northwest 23rd Street.

The woman lives in the home with her four children, between the ages of 7 and 14.

While state records show a Michele R. Ware listed at the woman's address, family members said her name is Michelle Carroll. Police would not confirm her name.

Investigators were looking into whether one of the children in the home may have left a door or window unlocked.

When Michelle Carroll came downstairs, the front door was open, a family member said.

''We don't see any signs of forced entry,'' King said.

Police said they could not confirm that the man was naked, but bloody clothes were found outside on the sidewalk near the town house. The man did not know her, King said.

''She was protecting her kids,'' Lindey Carroll said.

Michelle Carroll was too upset to talk about the incident, Lindey Carroll said.

``She's just trying to calm down and settle down. She is scared.''

It was unclear whether anything was stolen from the home, and no charges had been filed as of Wednesday night.

The incident occurred in a safe neighborhood full of families, said Marie Egleton, whose mother lives on the street.

''It's a lot of families that live down this row, and everyone looks out for everyone's children,'' she said.


Note, he was naked, and made no threatening moves. He did walk toward her, but hey, maybe he just wanted a hug. Maybe his self esteem was low that day...

Hi.