Dad chases nude boy from daughter's room with pipe

[melensdad]

Maybe Sarah Palin's husband should have done this too

But seriously, if you opened a door in your house, found a nude male standing over your daughter, would you presume that this was a sexual assault or that it was a secret boyfriend and that your daughter was slutty? Me, I'd be presuming sexual assault. Then again, I have access to a backhoe and a large property to hide the body. Seems to me this would actually be a clear case of 'self defense' under the castle doctrine laws.

Too many cases of men breaking into homes and raping women occur to take a situation like this as a joke. Naked stranger in the room =

Seriously, you hear a strange noise down the hallway, you probably grab a gun. This kid is lucky the homeowner only had a pipe.

Dad chases nude boy from daughter's room with pipe
2 hours, 4 minutes ago
Print Story: Dad chases nude boy from daughter's room with pipe on Yahoo! News

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.​

 

[GetA2J]

WOW!
I'm glad I'm not him!
I sincerely hope the battery charges don't hold up!

 

[Scutter01]

I can't believe he was actually charged. That pisses me off to no end. According to the article:

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.

If the article is to be believed, the police and prosecutor's office KNOW that this is a BS charge, and they're STILL going after him. What a waste of everyone's time and money. Funny how the kid wasn't charged with B&E or unlawful sexual conduct.

And anyway, doesn't Florida have Castle Doctrine?

 

[Bill of Rights]

That was my thought, too, Scutter.

OK... everyone, repeat after me:

Ju-ry null-i-fi-ca-tion....

Very good. Class dismissed.

Blessings,
B

 

[melensdad]

A lot of the outcome of this could hinge on the daughter. If she shouted NO DADDY HE'S MY F***BUDDY DON'T HURT HIM (or something similar) before daddy started to beat the kid with a pipe then I think there may be grounds for assault. Another reason to carry a gun when you go into to investigate the noises . . . you could easily say that the sound of the gunshots drowned out your daughter's screams, which you took to be screams of fright and thought she was in fear of her life. In that case no charges would be pressed!

 

[hoosiertriangle]

[SIZE=-1]Florida's castle doctrine has an exception that does not allow deadly force to be used on a child in a castle doctrine situation. The statute does not make any exceptions for the owners knowledge or beliefs about the situation.
[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.-- [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](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: [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](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 [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](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. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if: [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](a) The person against whom the defensive force is used 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 [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](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 [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](d) The person against whom the defensive force is used 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 force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](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. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](5) As used in this section, the term: [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](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. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](b) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](c) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property. [/SIZE]

 

[GetA2J]

A lot of the outcome of this could hinge on the daughter. If she shouted NO DADDY HE'S MY F***BUDDY DON'T HURT HIM (or something similar) before daddy started to beat the kid with a pipe then I think there may be grounds for assault. Another reason to carry a gun when you go into to investigate the noises . . . you could easily say that the sound of the gunshots drowned out your daughter's screams, which you took to be screams of fright and thought she was in fear of her life. In that case no charges would be pressed!

Nice way to approach the issue. It just might work IF you grille your children about home intruders and such.
"You know kids I you ever see a stranger in our house SHOOT him down. and if "I" ever see a stranger in the house "I" will do the same...." MAYBE one's daughter would NOT invite her F.B. errr B.F. to her room in the middle of the night!

I just wonder IF the father recognized the naked intruder as Bif his daighter's "boyfriend", he just may end up with charges that stick.

The home intruder argument ONLY works IF the "intruder" is NOT someone you had over for supper last night.

 

[BloodEclipse]

Yeah it should be hard to make charges stick with a naked stranger anywhere in your house.

He would have been lucky to not have been shot at my house, but I'll guarantee he would have never been the same.

 

[Scutter01]

[SIZE=-1]Florida's castle doctrine has an exception that does not allow deadly force to be used on a child in a castle doctrine situation. The statute does not make any exceptions for the owners knowledge or beliefs about the situation.
[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.-- [/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1](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 [/SIZE]

This just means C.D. doesn't apply against a child when you are parent or lawful guardian of that child. It makes no prohibition regarding deadly force against a minor who has broken into your house and is raping your daughter.

 

[GetA2J]

[SIZE=-1]Florida's castle doctrine has an exception that does not allow deadly force to be used on a child in a castle doctrine situation. The statute does not make any exceptions for the owners knowledge or beliefs about the situation. [/SIZE]


[SIZE=-1]776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.-- [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](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: [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](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 [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](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. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](2) The presumption set forth in subsection (1) does not apply if: [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](a) The person against whom the defensive force is used 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 [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](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 [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](c) The person who uses defensive force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](d) The person against whom the defensive force is used 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 force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](3) A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](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. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](5) As used in this section, the term: [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](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. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](b) "Residence" means a dwelling in which a person resides either temporarily or permanently or is visiting as an invited guest. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1](c) "Vehicle" means a conveyance of any kind, whether or not motorized, which is designed to transport people or property. [/SIZE]

OK I'm close to 12 shades of confused now.
The part you have highlighted in bold type is referring to one who is IN your custody as being the ONE you wish removed.

 

[Scutter01]

I just wonder IF the father recognized the naked intruder as Bif his daighter's "boyfriend", he just may end up with charges that stick.

According to the article, the authorities are the ones saying he didn't know she had a boyfriend or that he'd been coming over for the last year. Shame on him for not knowing, of course, but from a legal standpoint they're going to have a tough time proving that he recognized the kid after that statement.

 

[NateIU10]

According to the article, the authorities are the ones saying he didn't know she had a boyfriend or that he'd been coming over for the last year. Shame on him for not knowing, of course, but from a legal standpoint they're going to have a tough time proving that he recognized the kid after that statement.

Yup. They most likely also use the "reasonable person" test if this goes further. If a reasonable person would have perceived it as a threat, he did no wrong (which he didn't do IMO). Now, even if it was a neighborhood kid or he had met the kid before, what does that really matter? You are much more likely to be attacked by someone you know, so I think that it doesn't really matter if he had seen him before or whatever.

 

[Bill of Rights]

This just means C.D. doesn't apply against a child when you are parent or lawful guardian of that child. It makes no prohibition regarding deadly force against a minor who has broken into your house and is raping your daughter.

Zackly. Otherwise, anyone up to age 17 could enter your home and rob you blind, rape your family, whatever, with complete impunity, unless he/she happened to be caught by police.

All that said, though, had he had the pistol, I doubt he could make the case for immediate threat-it's not like the FB had a concealed weapon. The other factor that may come into play is the "unlawful forcible entry". No evidence of "forcible", I'd bet. Most likely, I'd have proned the kid out on the floor and called the cops on his scrawny naked ass.

My

Blessings,
B

 

[GetA2J]

Yeah it should be hard to make charges stick with a naked stranger anywhere in your house.

He would have been lucky to not have been shot at my house, but I'll guarantee he would have never been the same.

PLease understand...
I am in NO way condoning the young man BEING in this house naked blah, blah.
HOWEVER if this young man has been in your company for well over a year he isn't exactly a stranger in a strange place. Just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Similar to your statement IF there was a young man standing over my daughter's bed naked I pobably would have to take him out with a ball bat or something similar. (of course ... now that I think of it. when I hear noises in the middle of the night I don't grab a ball bat, I grab my gun.)

 

[BloodEclipse]

PLease understand...
I am in NO way condoning the young man BEING in this house naked blah, blah.
HOWEVER if this young man has been in your company for well over a year he isn't exactly a stranger in a strange place. Just in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Similar to your statement IF there was a young man standing over my daughter's bed naked I pobably would have to take him out with a ball bat or something similar. (of course ... now that I think of it. when I hear noises in the middle of the night I don't grab a ball bat, I grab my gun.)

It appears that the boy had been sneaking in for a year but Dad had never met him. maybe I read it wrong but that is what I took from it. Dad didn't even know she had a BF.

 

[hoosiertriangle]

I apologize for the confusion. And, after carefully reading the statute, I'm rather confused by the use of the language. 1a and 2b don't seem to mesh if I use Scutter's interpretation. The only way I can get to square is that you can't use Castle Doctrine to forcibly remove a child of an intruder. This seems extremely weird to me. Again I apologize for the confusion, and appreciate further explanation and/or thoughts on the subject.

 

[Scutter01]

I apologize for the confusion. And, after carefully reading the statute, I'm rather confused by the use of the language. 1a and 2b don't seem to mesh if I use Scutter's interpretation. The only way I can get to square is that you can't use Castle Doctrine to forcibly remove a child of an intruder. This seems extremely weird to me. Again I apologize for the confusion, and appreciate further explanation and/or thoughts on the subject.

It's not confusing at all. You're attempting to separate the two parts of 2b into two separate sentences rather than one sentence broken by a qualifier.

[SIZE=-1](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[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]

If you take out some of the confusing qualifiers, you end up with the following sentence:

[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]

The person to be removed is a child of the person against whom the defensive force is used

I agree that it seems like you can't remove an intruder's child. I don't think that was what was intended.
[/SIZE]

 

[quiggly]

All I can say is....

10,000 well spent if it gives the Dad a reputation that he will beat any kids ass that comes to see his daughter...

 

[Bill of Rights]

Perhaps the intent was that if you had a houseguest that suddenly became an unwelcome guest and you wanted them to leave, you could not (yourself) forcibly remove either them or the child under C.D.? (as in "if you don't leave, I'll threaten your kid")



Blessings,
B

 

[GetA2J]

Ya know....
nowhere have I read how old the naked boy is, OR how old the daughter is?
This could be a real problem if they are in the pre-teen or low teen years old.


ETA: I guess the article did say she was a teenage daughter.