Bare spot under child's wndow….

[ezkl2230]

Turns out to be where neighborhood pervert has been spying on 8/10 yd old girls - probably for a while. Dad noticed it while mowing lawn, later caught him in the act and chased him away. Police found a "napkin with DNA" at the scene. He installed motion sensor lights and put plastic over the window.

Should have been armed while laying in wait to catch him.

Link Removed

If anyone on the forum is from this neighborhood in Orlando, FL, stay frosty.

Link Removed

 

[mappow]

I'm thinking 220 volt plate set for the nighttime. As soon as we start putting these perverts down, we'll break the chain. I would say un-friggin believable but this has , was and even in today's society driven by the Liberals.
Under 12, death penalty, 12-16 manual castration. 16-17,20 year max. NO exception or plea bargain. JMHO
You want to stop pedophiles, start killing them off. With EXTREME prejudice.

 

[Quiet Observer]

"Should have been armed while laying in wait to catch him".
"I'm thinking 220 volt plate set for the nighttime".

While voyeurism is disgusting no state would recognize it as a reason, by itself, to warrant use of lethal force. Unless the creep is attempting to directly attack a member of the family or making a forceful entry, the "protector" of the house could be charged with assault or even murder if the creep is shot (and killed). Setting a lethal booby trap could also result in prosecution, even if the creep never even comes in contact with it. Assault and murder charges could also be made. What happens if the owner forgets to disarm the device, and a neighbor's child wanders into the yard?
"If a person sets up such a trap to protect his/her property, he/she will be liable for any injury or death even to an unwanted intruder such as a burglar. It is illegal to set a booby trap on one's own property to prevent intruders".
Booby Traps Law & Legal Definition


Link Removed
Booby Trap Nailed Crook, and His Victim - Los Angeles Times

I in no way intend to defend the peeping Tom. But keep in mind if you are serving time in jail or prison, who will be at home to defend the family.

 

[BluesStringer]

While voyeurism is disgusting no state would recognize it as a reason, by itself, to warrant use of lethal force.

You are mistaken. While laying in wait for a serial offender may complicate the application, Castle Doctrine states don't use what the person was doing at/in your castle to determine whether or not to indict the homeowner for shooting/killing them, they use the "reasonable man" standard to suss out whether a threat of bodily injury or death would justify the shooting. If a reasonable man thought someone peering through his daughter's bedroom window in the middle of the night was actually trying to get in to do who-knows-what, that reasonable man is off the hook in several states across the country. In some states, even property crimes can justify a shooting. The Joe Horn case is a prime example.

There are very few laws surrounding the use of defensive force that one could say "no state" or "all states" view one way or the other about. There are nuances, loopholes, and intentional autonomous authorities granted property owners within every states' laws concerning use of force. Joe Horn didn't beat the rap by going to trial, the grand jury refused to indict, which says they viewed him as having acted within the laws of use of lethal force.

Blues

 

[ezkl2230]

Michigan castle law covers not only your immediate home, but anywhere on your property. Further, Michigan law states that force up to and including lethal can be used when there is imminent danger of death, great bodily harm, and rape. A reasonable man, given the state of things today (how many kids are kidnapped and raped each year?), would conclude that a pervert standing at the window of a child and masturbating poses an imminent threat of rape (at a minimum) to that child. If I were the father, I could truthfully stand before a court and state that I feared that my child was in imminent danger.

 

[BC1]

Turns out to be where neighborhood pervert has been spying on 8/10 yd old girls - probably for a while. Dad noticed it while mowing lawn, later caught him in the act and chased him away. Police found a "napkin with DNA" at the scene. He installed motion sensor lights and put plastic over the window.

Should have been armed while laying in wait to catch him.

Armed & Lying in wait = jail

 

[r1derbike]

Peeping Tom. Criminal trespass with video proof? Or will cops/prosecutors slough it off as harmless, until the pervert does something illegal and dastardly by raping the girl he fantasizes about, while whacking-his-willie at her window as a preface? I'm assuming that's the DNA they recovered.

Anyone may do a registered sex offender search, to see if they live close to you. However, many convicted sexual predators don't register. They are not about to follow law.

All I know, is we have some really effed-up criminals out there, and this is just sick.

 

[Quiet Observer]

Bluestringer and eckles2230,

The opening post dealt with an incident in Florida, not Texas or Michigan. The Florida law requires that the suspect was "in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering". There is nothing in the report to indicate that the creep was trying to force entry.
I do not want to go too deeply into the Joe Horn case and change the topic of this thread. But there are other factors. One report says that one of the robbers turned on him and started to turn away. The case was also complicated by racial, ethnic, and illegal immigration issues. The primary sponsor of the Texas Castle doctrine bill said that it did not apply in the Joe Horn case. Mr. Horn still wound up having to go to the grand jury hearing and paying for a lawyer.
As many self-defense writers point out, even if you are not prosecuted there may be a civil trial, more lawyer fees and possible reparation demanded.


"The 2014 Florida Statutes
Title XLVI CRIMES
Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE


776.013 Home protection; use or threatened 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 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".

 

[BC1]

Peeping Tom. Criminal trespass with video proof? Or will cops/prosecutors slough it off as harmless, until the pervert does something illegal and dastardly by raping the girl he fantasizes about, while whacking-his-willie at her window as a preface? I'm assuming that's the DNA they recovered.

Anyone may do a registered sex offender search, to see if they live close to you. However, many convicted sexual predators don't register. They are not about to follow law.

All I know, is we have some really effed-up criminals out there, and this is just sick.

Also remember that only a small percentage of sex offenders are required to register. Only those who were incarcerated or on probation or parole at the time the law was passed were required to register. Those who already finished their sentence, probation or parole could not be mandated to register.

 

[BluesStringer]

Bluestringer and eckles2230,

The opening post dealt with an incident in Florida, not Texas or Michigan. The Florida law requires that the suspect was "in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering". There is nothing in the report to indicate that the creep was trying to force entry.

I know where the story in the OP happened, but I responded directly to what you said, not what the OP said or where it happened.

While voyeurism is disgusting no state would recognize it as a reason, by itself, to warrant use of lethal force.

You were mistaken in that statement. Joe Horn was just one of many cases across multiple states that could've been used to illustrate that point. I wasn't trying to divert the thread off-topic, I was only trying to substantiate the point of correction I was making.

 

[S&W645]

Also, repeated break ins have resulted in booby traps being winked at by juries/prosecutors in Florida. It all depends on where the booby trap is. And a few tire iron marks under the window frame sets the peeping tom up for a fall.

 

[ezkl2230]

Armed & Lying in wait = jail

And if the police are either unwilling or unable to do anything? What this guy is doing is, in most states, a misdemeanor. Unfortunately, as studies of serial rapists and killers show us, it is also the starting point for many of them that turns into a felony in a heartbeat. Most police departments won't act on something like this unless the perv actually makes a move on someone. Oh, they might issue a restraining order, MAYBE increase patrols in the area, but we all know how effective THAT can be.

Sorry - if I am the father, I will take my chances with a jury. A parent's responsibility is to protect their children, even if society doesn't agree with that decision.

And Quiet - we are fully aware that this is taking place in Florida. Frankly, I am celebrating that MI offers some flexibility in dealing with bad guys. But my point is, sometimes a parent does what he has to do IN SPITE of the laws. In some instances, it is situations like this one in which a parent acts that force a change in the law.

 

[BC1]

And if the police are either unwilling or unable to do anything? What this guy is doing is, in most states, a misdemeanor. Unfortunately, as studies of serial rapists and killers show us, it is also the starting point for many of them that turns into a felony in a heartbeat. Most police departments won't act on something like this unless the perv actually makes a move on someone. Oh, they might issue a restraining order, MAYBE increase patrols in the area, but we all know how effective THAT can be.

Sorry - if I am the father, I will take my chances with a jury. A parent's responsibility is to protect their children, even if society doesn't agree with that decision.

And Quiet - we are fully aware that this is taking place in Florida. Frankly, I am celebrating that MI offers some flexibility in dealing with bad guys. But my point is, sometimes a parent does what he has to do IN SPITE of the laws. In some instances, it is situations like this one in which a parent acts that force a change in the law.

Better to keep your head and use a video system. Keep the gun out of the equation. How about a dog? My GSD would just hold them for the police. Wouldn't bite unless they tried to move. Sitting there armed and then drawing on the peep might be legal but... well we all learned something from GZ.

 

[Quiet Observer]

Simple voyeurism is a misdemeanor. Joe Horn shot 2 felons. He also had a good lawyer, and a like-minded grand jury.
Peeping Tom Law & Legal Definition
Someone is a blue state might not be so lucky.

“In most jurisdictions, the use of deadly force is justified only under conditions of extreme necessity as a last resort, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed. …
In the United Sates, a citizen may legally use deadly force when it is considered when the civilian feels their own life, or the lives of their family or those around them are in legitimate and imminent danger. Self-defense resulting in usage of deadly force by a civilian an individual or individuals is often subject to examination by a court if it is unclear whether it was necessary at the point of the offense, and whether any further action on the part of the law needs to be taken.”
Link Removed

The person using lethal force has to show that the perpetrator was about to inflict serious injury within seconds or a few brief minutes, not he might come back again and do something. That could be a weapon, or forceful illegal entry (crawling in a window, breaking it, or forcing a lock). A prosecutor or plaintiff’s attorney in a civil case will paint a picture of a vigilante being the judge, jury, and executioner.

I would shed little tears for the voyeur, but before someone uses lethal force they have to realize there can be serious complications afterward. In this case the voyeur becomes a "poor innocent victim of his addiction and the'vigilant'". His family may seek retribution in the criminal and civil courts. Threat may be threating in phone calls to the shooter family, harassment by the press, etc.

 

[BluesStringer]

Simple voyeurism is a misdemeanor.

So how does "simple voyeurism" produce DNA in sufficient quantities to identify the "voyeur" collected in the dirt under the window where his "simple voyeurism" caused a bald spot in the grass? I know it doesn't take a lot of DNA to identify its donor, but would his DNA be on the bottom of his shoes as he just stood there committing "simple voyeurism?"

Methinks you're understating the crime.

I don't know why you're still arguing the point anyway. You were mistaken in what you said when you said "no state would...." do pretty much whatever. Laws vary from state to state, and it's obvious you don't know all of them, and neither do I, but I do know that some states have a very low threshold before a citizen can legally use deadly force, and all-encompassing declarative statements about all of their laws very rarely apply. Why argue that point endlessly?

The person using lethal force has to show that the perpetrator was about to inflict serious injury within seconds or a few brief minutes

I'm sorry, but this is just another mistaken declarative statement. The person using deadly force has to have a reasonable belief that great bodily injury or death is about to occur in many, if not most, states. If they preempt that occurrence with lethal force, how would they then "show" that it was about to occur? Only their reasonable belief is the determining factor between justified and not justified in most states.

 

[Quiet Observer]

Did you take time to read the links I posted? They are from authorities in the field.

The US Legal site defined voyeurism as a misdemeanor, unless it involves using it to obtain unauthorized pictures. Then it becomes a felony. I used “simple” to differentiate misdemeanor from felony. Masturbation does not make it a felony. Repeating misdemeanors does not automatically make them felonies. In some jurisdictions after repeated convictions for the same misdemeanor, the offender can be charged with a felony for the same action.

“The person using deadly force has to have a reasonable belief that great bodily injury or death is about to occur in many, if not most, states.”

True, but the final determination about “reasonable” is made by the police, prosecutor, and/or court. Simply stating "I feared for my life (or that of another) is not sufficient defense. Any gangbanger can claim that.

“The person using deadly force has to have a reasonable belief that great bodily injury or death is about to occur in many, if not most, states. See the Guns & The Law - Using Your Gun For Defense link above.

How do you define “is about to occur”? I said “within seconds or a few brief minutes”, i.e. there is no time to call the police to prevent serious injury, the person is threatening with a weapon, is physically attacking, etc.

 

[ezkl2230]

True, but the final determination about “reasonable” is made by the police, prosecutor, and/or court. Simply stating "I feared for my life (or that of another) is not sufficient defense. Any gangbanger can claim that.

Incorrect. Many states specify that a claim of fear as reasonable only applies if the individual making the claim is not committing a crime at the time of their claim, so no, any gangbanger CAN'T claim that.

 

[BC1]

Did you take time to read the links I posted? They are from authorities in the field.

The US Legal site defined voyeurism as a misdemeanor, unless it involves using it to obtain unauthorized pictures. Then it becomes a felony. I used “simple” to differentiate misdemeanor from felony. Masturbation does not make it a felony. Repeating misdemeanors does not automatically make them felonies. In some jurisdictions after repeated convictions for the same misdemeanor, the offender can be charged with a felony for the same action.

“The person using deadly force has to have a reasonable belief that great bodily injury or death is about to occur in many, if not most, states.”

True, but the final determination about “reasonable” is made by the police, prosecutor, and/or court. Simply stating "I feared for my life (or that of another) is not sufficient defense. Any gangbanger can claim that.

“The person using deadly force has to have a reasonable belief that great bodily injury or death is about to occur in many, if not most, states. See the Guns & The Law - Using Your Gun For Defense link above.

How do you define “is about to occur”? I said “within seconds or a few brief minutes”, i.e. there is no time to call the police to prevent serious injury, the person is threatening with a weapon, is physically attacking, etc.

To put it politely, you're dead wrong. Some on this site are also experts. One can't make a generic statement about the law. Varies state to state. Repeat offenses do constitute a more serious crime in most states.
.
Blues is correct. One must be in imminent danger. Thus a tool of last resort.
.
The standard of the reasonable person is applied by a grand jury or jury (at trial) to the circumstances shown by the evidence. "Reasonableness" is not a static principle. It is variable. What is reasonable to one may not be to another. Thus a jury must put itself in the position of the person claiming an affirmative defense when deciding if his actions were reasonable. Thus it is "reasonable" to believe a 100 pound elderly woman would be more fearful than a 220 pound young, athletic man.

 

[Quiet Observer]

"Incorrect. Many states specify that a claim of fear as reasonable only applies if the individual making the claim is not committing a crime at the time of their claim, so no, any gangbanger CAN'T claim that."


If the gangbanger is walking alone down the street and sees an opposing gang member across the street, runs across the street, pulls out a pocket knife and slashes the throat of the other before he can react "because I was afraid that he might see me first and pull his gun and shoot me", what crime was being committed? It is not illegal for either one to walk down the street. There is no evidence that either one was carrying out any specific gang activity at that time. So now he can claim justified use of lethal force?

 

[Nightmare45]

Climbing my fence posted property you have a major problem in Texas.