This sounds like an example of a person getting two separate roles mixed up.
First, this man was a member of a neighbourhood watch. As such his responsibility is to report stuff to the police. That is the limit of his responsibilty. His "tools" are a cell phone, flashlight, and perhaps a digital camera.
Separate from this, the guy also was authorized to carry a concealed weapon for self defense. Self defense, not law enforcement.
I think he got the roles confused. Even though Florida has a version of "castle doctrine (which I feel is poorly worded), castle doctrine does not apply to neighbourhood watches.
Florida Statute Title 56, section 776.012 states
Quote:
Use of force in defense of person.—A person is justified in using force, except deadly 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. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if 1)***8195;He or she reasonably believes that 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; or
(2)***8195;Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.
|
section 776.013 refers to when you are in your house or vehicle.
It would be up to this guy to prove that he had reasonable belief that he was in danger of "imminent death" or "great bodily harm" or that there was an "imminent commission of a forcible Felony underway.
Florida Statute Title 56, section 776.031 states
Quote:
|
Use of force in defense of others.—A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
|
I don't think a member of a neighbourhood watch has a "legal duty to protect". Additionally this guy would have to prove that deadly force was necessary to prevent "imminent commission" of a forcible felony. Section 776.08 defines a forcible Felony.
If his neighbourhood watch is like others I have been associated with (Nebraska), members were not allowed to carry weapons. Probably for this very reason. If his neighbourhood watch has a similar rule, he will lose the protection of being an agent of the neighbourhood watch.
As a responsible gun owner, I don't think this guy acted responsibly. His responsibility was to call the police and then be ready to assist the police with a full and accurate report. While all the facts are still not in, I am afraid this might be a case of a John Wayne wannabe making a tragic mistake.
I heard on the news (so it MUST be true) that this individual has a history of making false police reports. We may have a buckaroo here. 