FL - St. Petersburg Homeowner Shot Would-Be Burglar

[Kevlar]

http://www.tampabay.com/news/public...urg-homeowner-shoots-would-be-burglar/1075550

ST. PETERSBURG — When Michael Allsop heard his bedroom window shatter, police said, he ran into his bathroom and called 911.

But when he saw two hands reach into his house, he put down the phone and picked up his 9mm pistol.

The 59-year-old homeowner opened fire Wednesday morning, wounding a would-be burglar.

The burglar ran away. Minutes later, a man showed up at Bayfront Medical Center with two gunshot wounds. St. Petersburg police said that's where they arrested Michael Patterson, 30, on a charge of burglary of an occupied structure.

"I'm glad he's alive," Allsop said. "Maybe he'll tell his friends not to come back.

"I don't want to kill anybody."

Allsop has had plenty of experience with burglars. Wednesday's break-in was the sixth burglary reported at his home at 1926 Seminole Blvd. S in the five years he's lived there, police records show.

Allsop said he heard a knock at the door about 9:40 a.m. but didn't answer it because he wasn't expecting anyone.

Then he heard the bedroom window shatter.

He fired three or four times when he saw the burglar trying to enter, police said.

It was the same window that was damaged when, police said, three men tried to get into his house on the evening of Aug. 23.

Allsop said he and his son were in the bedroom when that break-in occurred.

Allsop grabbed his weapon and fired several shots at the burglars from inside the home, police said.

He also ran outside and fired one last shot at the retreating burglars. No one was injured or arrested. Police told him that everything that he did was legal up until he ran outside and fired at the men as they ran away.

A police spokesman said Allsop appeared to have done nothing wrong in Wednesday's shooting.

Under Florida law, people can defend themselves with deadly force if they have a "reasonable fear of imminent peril" from someone "unlawfully and forcefully" entering their residence.

Allsop is a native of Trinidad who immigrated to the United States in 1989. He came to Florida from New York with his son, now 6, about five years ago. He has no criminal record in Florida.

Soon after arriving in Cromwell Heights, he felt he had to buy a handgun.

His home was burglarized twice in 2005, once in 2006 and twice more in 2009, records show. After being victimized again Wednesday, the widowed, single father said he just doesn't feel safe.

"At this point, I'm seriously thinking about moving," Allsop said.

Patterson, of 2464 14th Ave. S, was treated at the hospital for gunshot wounds to his hand and upper body, then was booked into the Pinellas County Jail.

In 2007, he pleaded no contest to charges of grand theft and larceny, court records say.

He was adjudicated guilty and sentenced to time served.

In January he was arrested on a petty theft charge, to which he has pleaded not guilty.

 

[theGringo]

"At this point, I'm seriously thinking about moving," Allsop said.

Well ...

You know, in Massachusetts, this guy would have lost his gun after the August incident.

 

[Larry Legend]

He also ran outside and fired one last shot at the retreating burglars.

he's screwed.

 

[rattletrap1970]

I love how the guy is never guilty.

 

[GSG]

You know, in Massachusetts, this guy would have lost his gun after the August incident.

Thankfully it's not like that down here. If you don't get arrested, they don't take the gun. It's laid out in 790.08. Also, Chapter 776 lays out Justifiable Use of Force in Florida.

There's some great stuff in there too:

776.013

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.

This last part is my personal favorite, one that you miss out on in Mass.:

776.032

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.--

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting 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 was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

(2) A law enforcement agency may use standard procedures for investigating the use of force as described in subsection (1), but the agency may not arrest the person for using force unless it determines that there is probable cause that the force that was used was unlawful.

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).

They need PC that the shoot was bad before they can arrest you in FL, and if it was a clean shoot the courts will reimburse your expenses if someone tries to sue you over it.

he's screwed.

Not really. Another good thing about FL law is it lays out "legislative intent."

From 790.25

This subsection shall be liberally construed in favor of the lawful use, ownership, and possession of firearms and other weapons, including lawful self-defense as provided in s. 776.012.

790.173

(2) It is the intent of the Legislature that adult citizens of the state retain their constitutional right to keep and bear firearms for hunting and sporting activities and for defense of self, family, home, and business and as collectibles. Nothing in this act shall be construed to reduce or limit any existing right to purchase and own firearms, or to provide authority to any state or local agency to infringe upon the privacy of any family, home, or business, except by lawful warrant.

There's stuff like that all over FL firearms/self defense laws. The right of the law abiding to self defense down here in Florida is held in high regard by law enforcement. Notice that in the above case, it was their opinion that he overstepped his boundaries a little, but they didn't charge him for it because they took the legislative intent to heart, and liberally interpreted the laws in favor of lawful self defense.

The laws aren't quite perfect down here yet, but the Florida legislature approaches life from a whole different perspective.

It's a beautiful thing.