This post is locked. You won't be able to comment.

1135
1136

Woman wrestled me to the ground and held me at gunpoint (Florida) (self.legaladvice)

chuckleen が 投稿

Hello everyone, I hope this is the right subreddit to post this. I'm a bit shaken by the entire experience. This happened about 2 weeks ago.

I am a 25 year old male. I am also black in a primarily white neighborhood, which may or may not be relevant but I'll mention it anyway.

I live in an apartment complex with my dad and stepmom, and we have an assigned parking spot. My stepmom's car stays there, and my dad and I park our cars on the street.

It was a Saturday evening around 9:00. My stepmom realized she left something in her car so she told me to get it. I grabbed her keys and went downstairs to the parking lot. This is where I messed up. She drives a different model car than me, and so I got confused with how to unlock the door and I guess I must have accidentally pressed the car alarm. I was frantically pushing buttons trying to get the alarm to stop.

This lady (white, probably age 50s) came over and grabbed my arm and wrestled me to the ground. Another lady (also white, probably 40s) was passing by and asked "what's going on". The first lady replied "car thief!" The second lady took out her gun and pointed it at my head while I was still pinned down to the ground. The police showed up in a few minutes, I'm not sure who called them. Maybe the second lady did, but I was too scared to notice.

The police talked to the ladies and then to me. They wanted me to verify that the car was mine. I opened the glove box and got the registration, but it was in my stepmom's name and she has a different last name than me. So they decided to arrest me because I couldn't prove that I had permission to open the car. I told them to go and check with my stepmom, but they refused. Thankfully, just as they were handcuffing me, my dad came out to see why I was taking so long. The police told him that they needed proof that I had permission, so my dad went inside and got my stepmom, and she showed her ID and registration to the police, and they un-handcuffed me and let me go.

So I don't think I am facing any charges anymore, but this was a traumatic experience and I have several bruises and a bump on my head from when the lady knocked me to the ground. I was pretty sure the second lady was going to shoot me so I closed my eyes, prayed and waited. I just want to know if there is anything I can do legally to these two ladies for what they put me through. Also, did the police act appropriately in this case, and if not can I complain to anyone.

全 156 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]dustydiamond 530ポイント531ポイント  (3子コメント)

I would like to know why the police refused to check on OP's claim that he had permission (from someone steps away) to be in the car? IMNAL Thanks!

[–]relayrider 641ポイント642ポイント  (0子コメント)

because florida. young black male, two older white females. let's not sugarcoat it, like OP tried to do.

[–]SenorJuansieQuality Contributor 68ポイント69ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think they did check. he says he was arrested but I think he was actually just cuffed while the cops figured it out (eventually his dad came out and got them the info).

[–]imtheprimary 107ポイント108ポイント  (0子コメント)

At the very least you have a case for assault and battery. You might want to ask the police department for a copy of the report, because even if you didn't get the names involved, the police probably did.

[–][削除されました]  (2子コメント)

[removed]

    [–]thepatmanQuality Contributor[M] 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Your post has been removed for the following reason(s):

    Off Topic

    • Posts or submissions that are not primarily asking or discussing legal questions are removed.

    If you feel this was in error, message the moderators.

    [–]SenorJuansieQuality Contributor 1101ポイント1102ポイント  (79子コメント)

    Although many people, not least gunowners, seem to think differently, you can't use deadly force in defense of property. So this is assault and the woman's defense of self defense (of property) fails. You can sue her civilly for assault and maybe other damages, and you can encourage your district attorney to charge her criminally.

    As for the cops, you weren't arrested, you were detained, and that's fine.

    [–]denbronxva 505ポイント506ポイント  (44子コメント)

    In some states, you can use deadly force to protect property, such as Texas, Section 9.42.

    Granted, Florida is not one of them, but making a blanket statement that you can't use deadly force in defense of property is incorrect.

    [–]Hovsky 21ポイント22ポイント  (2子コメント)

    It is also important to note that producing a weapon is not considered deadly force in Texas, provided you are trying to create the apprehension that you will use deadly force if necessary.

    [–]Lee_Ars 13ポイント14ポイント  (0子コメント)

    When I did my first CC class in Texas back in 2006, our instructor explained that there's an equivalency in the threat of deadly force with the use of force—that is, drawing and pointing a gun would be assault and legally equivalent to the use of non-deadly force.

    However, the state's gun laws have had two major revisions since then and I don't see anything like that equivalency explicitly written there anymore. But yeah, producing a weapon to create the apprehension that you'll use deadly force if you have to is still a major escalation; it's assault and it has to be justified by the circumstances.

    I also believe—especially from threads like these—that TX's stance on this is pretty liberal compared to other states with "brandishing" laws on the books. In most places, it sounds like the old conventional wisdom of "don't draw your gun unless you're preparing to put all seven rounds of .45 ACP into center mass" is still correct.

    [–]SenorJuansieQuality Contributor 135ポイント136ポイント  (4子コメント)

    OK. Thanks for that link. Looks like it's more or less a forcible felony rule. though it includes "if the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means."

    [–]McBonderson 47ポイント48ポイント  (3子コメント)

    Also, does that include other peoples property?

    [–]Lee_Ars 76ポイント77ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Yes. See Texas Penal Code §9.43, "PROTECTION OF THIRD PERSON'S PROPERTY." Use of force or deadly force is allowed, though depending on the circumstances, you might have a difficult time convincing a jury that the use was justified. Cf the 2007 Joe Horn shooting controversy, where he was eventually found not guilty but it was a massive, massive thing—media attention, bloviating lawyers, and two people dead over a stolen TV.

    [–]relayrider 16ポイント17ポイント  (0子コメント)

    In texas, [and i think ONLY texas] yes.

    [–]SenorJuansieQuality Contributor 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

    would be state law, but the answer is probably yes. but you take the risk of being wrong and being liable to the suspected criminal.

    [–]relayrider 62ポイント63ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Granted, Florida is not one of them

    In florida you can defend property, particularly a vehicle, as long as it is your own vehicle, and you are in it, i.e. 'carjacking' 776.013(a) "The person against whom the defensive force is used or threatened has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle, such as an owner, lessee, or titleholder,..."

    emphasis mine. IANAL.

    [–]denbronxva 52ポイント53ポイント  (1子コメント)

    That's a violent crime, whereas simply stealing a car is not.

    [–]relayrider 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

    ah, sorry, texan here, where that verbiage means you can shoot to kill.

    edit: this is why the CCW classes have to spend so much time on each state's laws. one of the many downsides of being a Republic.

    [–]biCamelKase 10ポイント11ポイント  (7子コメント)

    What if it's not your property but someone else's that's possibly being stolen?

    [–]brazos1911 51ポイント52ポイント  (3子コメント)

    There was a case in Houston a few years back where a guy shot 2 men who were running away after robbing his neighbors house. He was found not guilty but said he regretted shooting the guys since court was such a hassle.

    [–]Lee_Ars 30ポイント31ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Joe Horn, in 2007. Acted within the state's laws (Texas Penal Code §§ 9.41, 9.42, and 9.43), but he really went out of his way to shoot the two thieves.

    [–]digital_mana 26ポイント27ポイント  (1子コメント)

    I don't necessarily believe theft should be a death sentence, but if you break into someone's house you accept the risk that you might die doing it. Especially so in states where it's legal to use deadly force to protect property.

    [–]Lee_Ars 68ポイント69ポイント  (0子コメント)

    I don't disagree. But IMO (and it's just that—my opinion, not trying to comment on the reasonableness or application of the law) what Horn did was wrong. It's one thing if you hear a bump in the night and walk downstairs and find someone inside your house—in that case, shooting feels completely justified. It might happen very fast. You might not have time to consider your actions. The other person might do anything. There's an unknown, unquantifiable danger in your home.

    But Horn saw the guys breaking into the neighbor's house (which was unoccupied at the time) and called 911. He talked to the operator for some time. There was time for a plainclothes detective to arrive and witness the event unfolding. Horn repeatedly said told the 911 operator he was going to get his gun and shoot the thieves. The 911 operator repeatedly told him not to. Finally, he grabbed his shotgun, went outside, and shot them—he yelled "stop or you're dead" and then fired. The plainclothes detective that witnessed the event said that Horn shot them in the back (though the medical examiner said that was inconclusive).

    I agree that if you choose to break into a home you accept the risk that you might die. But I think that in this case, Horn went out of his way to play cowboy and kill two people because he knew the law said he could.

    [–]denbronxva 16ポイント17ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Texas, Section 9.43

    While we're on the topic, let's be real. Texas is one of the very few states that allow deadly force in protection of property.

    [–]digital_mana 15ポイント16ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Alaska too, as far as burglary and car jackings go, if you try to steal someone's stuff inside their house or their vehicle there's no duty to and escape or leave, you can just go for it.

    Alaska also has some pretty lax gun laws... no permit necessary to open or conceal carry.

    [–]m1st3r_and3rs0n 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Even in Texas, the courts take a very dim view on using deadly force for defense of property. I would recommend watching Mas Ayoob's "Judicious Use of Deadly Force" and some of his later videos. He's very well regarded.

    [–][削除されました]  (23子コメント)

    [removed]

      [–][削除されました]  (3子コメント)

      [removed]

        [–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

        [removed]

          [–]gratty[M] 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Your post has been removed for the following reason(s):

          Your comment has been removed for one or more of the following reasons:

          • It was generally unhelpful or in poor taste.
          • It was confusing or badly written.
          • It failed to add to the discussion.

          If you feel this was in error, message the moderators.

          [–]jaspervalQuality Contributor 96ポイント97ポイント  (5子コメント)

          There's a huge difference between brandishing a weapon and deadly force though. I'd agree that if the old lady actually shot him it would be unjustified; because Florida's stand your ground law requires the vehicle to be occupied for it to be considered a car jacking, and thus a forcible felony. But the tackling was ok, if she had probable cause to think he was stealing the car.

          They could conceivably make the argument that they had performed a citizens arrest under 941.14 and were using the brandishing as a means to prevent an escape in accordance with 776.07 or in the event it became necessary for self defense later.

          [–]SenorJuansieQuality Contributor 23ポイント24ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Good points. I wonder about the civil suit, though. If you establish the elements of assault, does the defendant get to say, 'no, it was actually legally permissible brandishing?'. is that just like the law enforcement defense? what about the fact that defendant was wrong...

          [–]mgulley08 53ポイント54ポイント  (2子コメント)

          But how? I'm just wondering. He had the keys. Even though his name wasn't on the insurance and registration, wouldn't it be reasonable to assume he has permission to use the vehicle if he has the keys? Simply setting off an alarm doesn't mean someone is going to steal the car.

          [–]Stocks_for_Yachts 12ポイント13ポイント  (0子コメント)

          prevent an escape in accordance with 776.07

          I was frantically searching for this for the last 15 minutes... thank you.

          [–]Rogue12Patriot 11ポイント12ポイント  (1子コメント)

          I've seen lots of advice on here about only being able to get damages from lawsuits, how do you assess damages if he didn't have actual injuries.....would it simply be reimbursement for any medical and pshychiatric visits and work time missed for said visits?

          [–]SenorJuansieQuality Contributor 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

          I don't know either. It's a state law thing. But actual damages for IIED could be present and future pain and suffering.

          [–]WraithSama 51ポイント52ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Not to mention it wasn't even the woman's property she was "defending." She acted on multiple incorrect assumptions about the situation with her threats of deadly force.

          [–]ChillyCheese 8ポイント9ポイント  (2子コメント)

          Isn't this more a citizen's arrest? Stealing a car is a felony, and in general citizen's arrest (with non-deadly force) is allowed when you have reasonable suspicion you are witnessing a felony or certain misdemeanors in action.

          It's questionable, however, whether seeing someone standing near a car with the alarm going off, and not actually witnessing them trying to start the car through non-key manipulation, would qualify as witnessing a felony.

          [–]SenorJuansieQuality Contributor 31ポイント32ポイント  (0子コメント)

          note that someone posted elsewhere that their FL bar exam notes say that when the person conducting a citizens arrest is wrong, he can't use the defense. no matter how reasonable his intent was. so maybe citizens arrest is out the window for both civil and criminal sides of this.

          [–]SenorJuansieQuality Contributor 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

          yes I am contemplating jasperval's comment about citizens arrest and brandishing. I think it could be a factual issue though it's of course unlikely that the woman would be criminally charged. in the civil suit it would be an intentional tort and so you take your plaintiff as he comes. idk if mistaken citizens arrest claim would fly.

          [–]Stocks_for_Yachts 13ポイント14ポイント  (11子コメント)

          This is a terrible blanket statement to make. As a gun owner, I would gladly give someone any possession rather than using deadly force to protect my TV, but there are certainly cases where you can use force up to "what a reasonable person would expect to be necessary under similar conditions."

          Force can increase proportionally to the advances of the perceived aggressor, and states vary widely on a civilian's ability to challenge with violence and at what point you are able.

          Edit: FL's guidelines on brandishing your CCW.

          Prevent a forcible felony.

          Woman 2's information was such that a felony was being committed, and it very well could be considered forcible based on OP's story.

          [–]BlatantConservative 42ポイント43ポイント  (7子コメント)

          OP was already on the ground and not fighting. There was no threat of violence and absolutely no reason to draw the weapon.

          [–]Reddisaurusrekts 11ポイント12ポイント  (0子コメント)

          OP was already on the ground and not fighting.

          On the ground yes. Not fighting? I don't see that from OP's post, and I know that if I'd just been wrestled to the ground I'd be struggling like hell to get free.

          [–]Stocks_for_Yachts 4ポイント5ポイント  (5子コメント)

          grabbed my arm and wrestled me to the ground.

          You're making a lot of assumptions. At what point in this wrestling match did Woman 2 enter the scene? We have no idea if it appeared to be an ongoing struggle or not.

          [–]makereddittgreatagen 15ポイント16ポイント  (0子コメント)

          The only person who could have legally used lethal force in this whole situation was the OP. The OP was being attacked and legally could have stood his ground. These women are the criminals.

          [–]BlatantConservative 26ポイント27ポイント  (3子コメント)

          The second lady took out her gun and pointed it at my head while I was still pinned down to the ground

          Its not about when she arrived, its about when she drew.

          Now, OP might be omitting information, lord knows that happens all the time around here. But based on his words lady 2 was way out of line

          [–]BUBBLYSTRING 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Now, OP might be omitting information

          ...not the exact deduction I made.......

          [–]SenorJuansieQuality Contributor 10ポイント11ポイント  (2子コメント)

          That is an extremely sloppy description of the reasonableness requirement. But reasonableness is not an issue in this fact pattern because this is, in fact, not a forcible felony and deadly force in self defense would not be a permitted defense. This is grand theft. The forcible felonies are the well-known common law violent felonies plus carjacking (which this is not).

          [–]reed17purdue 11ポイント12ポイント  (2子コメント)

          Thats not true in some states. You shouldnt use a blanket response. The woman pulling the gun is not at fault. She believed serious harm and a potential frlony had just occurred.

          The woman who pulled him out of the vehicle is at fault. She did assualt him.

          https://www.uslawshield.com/florida-gun-law/

          [–]SenorJuansieQuality Contributor 34ポイント35ポイント  (1子コメント)

          a felony in itself does not permit deadly force in defense of person or property. only certain felonies do. none of which occurred in this post.

          [–]Mrknowitall666 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

          Well, if woman #2 sees woman #1 struggling with a man, she may not be invoking castle doctrine, but stand your ground. She has no duty to retreat and is protecting a person in a struggle with a younger more fit man, at that point...

          [–]SenorJuansieQuality Contributor 6ポイント7ポイント  (1子コメント)

          this could be true. would be up to the jury.

          [–]Mrknowitall666 -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

          if it gets to a jury.

          Woman 2s better defense is that she was stopping a violent altercation between a man and older woman, until the police arrived. Is what I was getting at.

          [–]BlatantConservative 253ポイント254ポイント  (38子コメント)

          OP, do you even know who these people are or have a way to contact them?

          You can file a police report against the second woman for brandishing and threatening you with a weapon. Even if you were actually stealing, she had no reason to draw and threaten after you were already on the ground and not a threat.

          The first woman did not break the law, really. She had a legitimate reason to think you were stealing, because of the car alarm. She does owe you an apology though.

          [–]biCamelKase 170ポイント171ポイント  (35子コメント)

          Really? It's legal to assault someone on suspicion of theft?

          [–]relayrider 241ポイント242ポイント  (23子コメント)

          Only if it is your own property, in your own home/business. Florida does not allow the use of Castle doctrine in the protection of the property of others outside the home.

          So BOTH women are wrong here, the first because it was not her car, and the second because she was not an involved party in any of the property, and was not in her home/domicile/"castle"

          [–]mkizys 14ポイント15ポイント  (1子コメント)

          You can perform a citizens arrest if you witnessed a felony, car theft is a felony. She could prove reasonable belief a theft was in progress. Castle doctrine doesnt apply to the first woman because she didn't use deadly force, she used reasonable force to perform a citizens arrest

          [–]ThatThar 65ポイント66ポイント  (0子コメント)

          There's no amount of reasonable force for a citizen's arrest.

          [–]Gumstead 11ポイント12ポイント  (20子コメント)

          You have no idea what you're talking about.

          Florida has a statute for citizens arrest, 941.14.

          It also has a statute for use of force in preventing escape from apprehension,776.07. This law specifically states

          A law enforcement officer or other person who has an arrested person in his or her custody is justified in the use of any force which he or she reasonably believes to be necessary to prevent the escape of the arrested person from custody.

          So, a citizen may use force to effect an arrest on another private citizen.

          Castle doctrine applies to use of deadly force, not force to effect an arrest.

          [–]sovietracism 129ポイント130ポイント  (2子コメント)

          For a citizen arrest, you need to be correct that there was an underlying crime being committed. These ladies fucked up.

          It's been a few years since crim law, but from my notes for the Florida Bar, "A civilian acting without police direction in making an arrest (e.g., a “citizen’s arrest”) who makes a mistake, even a reasonable mistake, as to the commission of the crime is not entitled to rely on this defense."

          The law gives leeway to the police, but not to private citizens.

          [–]jestax 66ポイント67ポイント  (0子コメント)

          This is exactly why if you ever think about making a citizens arrest, make for damn sure you're right, or actually saw the crime committed.

          Even if you did, there is a good chance someone will be taking you to court to prove you didn't make a mistake.

          [–]relayrider 41ポイント42ポイント  (3子コメント)

          Florida has a statute for citizens arrest, 941.14.

          yes, but the first woman had no cause to effect such an arrest, if OPs statements are correct. It was not her car, and thus she had no reason to believe it was NOT OP's car, outside of overt racism, tbh.

          The second woman may have some cause, if she believes the first woman's statement of OP being a car thief, BUT... if you draw any LETHAL weapon, you must believe that LETHAL force is required to prevent DEATH or "great bodily harm." If OP's statements are correct, he was restrained, not resisting, and not presenting any threat rising to the level of presenting LETHAL force.

          I have a lot of idea what i'm talking about, but IANAL.

          EDIT: "Isn't Florida the state that jailed a woman for a warning shot?" yes, yes it is. Florida obviously considers displays of lethal force to be aggravated assault unless full justified. or not. There's a reason for the "Florida Man" meme

          [–]NotARealTiger 4ポイント5ポイント  (0子コメント)

          Go for the throat.

          edit: IANAL

          [–]funkyArmaDildo 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

          IANAL Wait! What about false imprisonment? One citizen not having the legal authority to imprison another citizen. Isn't that why you had to be super duper sure before you attempt a citizen's arrest?