The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: Hazcat on October 31, 2009, 09:35:04 AM
-
Prosecutors drop charges against Pasco man who shot trespasser in front yard
By Molly Moorhead, Times Staff Writer
In Print: Saturday, October 31, 2009
WESLEY CHAPEL — In August, a man in Stagecoach Village woke to the sounds of someone trying to get in his house. He confronted the intruder, who was intoxicated and confused, and the intruder left. But then the stranger returned, and the homeowner felt the need to defend himself and his property — with a gun.
Sheriff's deputies investigated and arrested the homeowner, Gregory Allan Stewart, on a charge of aggravated battery. A Sheriff's Office spokesman said Stewart was not justified in using lethal force by shooting William Vincent Kuch in the chest when he showed up on Stewart's lawn, apparently lost.
Prosecutors have now dropped the charge against Stewart, 32, citing Florida's "stand your ground" law, which allows people to use deadly force when they feel threatened.
Kuch's family is unhappy.
"They seem to have believed the shooter without any facts. Until those facts are proven, we think every case should go to trial," said William Kuch, the father of the man who was shot.
Manny Garcia, an assistant state attorney in Dade City, said the office reviewed the case and determined that the "stand your ground" law applied, in that Stewart had no obligation to retreat when Kuch, 23, wouldn't back away.
"We felt that (Stewart) was legally justified in what he did," Garcia said.
When the incident happened Aug. 1, Stewart told Pasco sheriff's deputies that his front doorknob rattled around 5 a.m. He asked whomever it was to leave, but a few minutes later, the person outside shook the knob again.
Stewart told authorities he then grabbed his Smith & Wesson semiautomatic handgun and went outside.
The young man in his front yard appeared intoxicated, Stewart told deputies. Garcia said Kuch's blood alcohol level was measured later at higher than 0.30, which is more than three times the threshold for driving under the influence.
Stewart could see he was unarmed. Kuch didn't make any threatening comments or gestures and asked repeatedly for a light for his cigarette, a sheriff's report said.
But Stewart told deputies he wouldn't leave.
"Don't make me shoot you," Stewart warned, according to the report.
Kuch took three steps toward Stewart and on the third step, Stewart fired, hitting Kuch in the chest.
Stewart had no other criminal history in Florida. Kuch has a history of trouble with the law, including most recently two charges of driving under the influence in 2007.
Kuch's father said his son spent a month in the hospital, with damage to his lung and heart. He's okay now, the father said, but the family feels that it has been denied justice.
"They just have blindly interpreted this law without concern to what actually happened," the elder Kuch said.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/prosecutors-drop-charges-against-pasco-man-who-shot-trespasser-in-front/1048262
Comments at link
-
Prosecutors drop charges against Pasco man who shot trespasser in front yard
By Molly Moorhead, Times Staff Writer
In Print: Saturday, October 31, 2009
WESLEY CHAPEL — In August, a man in Stagecoach Village woke to the sounds of someone trying to get in his house. He confronted the intruder, who was intoxicated and confused, and the intruder left. But then the stranger returned, and the homeowner felt the need to defend himself and his property — with a gun.
Sheriff's deputies investigated and arrested the homeowner, Gregory Allan Stewart, on a charge of aggravated battery. A Sheriff's Office spokesman said Stewart was not justified in using lethal force by shooting William Vincent Kuch in the chest when he showed up on Stewart's lawn, apparently lost.
>>> No, he didn't just show up, he returned!
Prosecutors have now dropped the charge against Stewart, 32, citing Florida's "stand your ground" law, which allows people to use deadly force when they feel threatened.
Kuch's family is unhappy.
"They seem to have believed the shooter without any facts. Until those facts are proven, we think every case should go to trial," said William Kuch, the father of the man who was shot.
>>> Seems to me the facts are well known.
Manny Garcia, an assistant state attorney in Dade City, said the office reviewed the case and determined that the "stand your ground" law applied, in that Stewart had no obligation to retreat when Kuch, 23, wouldn't back away.
"We felt that (Stewart) was legally justified in what he did," Garcia said.
When the incident happened Aug. 1, Stewart told Pasco sheriff's deputies that his front doorknob rattled around 5 a.m. He asked whomever it was to leave, but a few minutes later, the person outside shook the knob again.
Stewart told authorities he then grabbed his Smith & Wesson semiautomatic handgun and went outside.
The young man in his front yard appeared intoxicated, Stewart told deputies. Garcia said Kuch's blood alcohol level was measured later at higher than 0.30, which is more than three times the threshold for driving under the influence.
Stewart could see he was unarmed. Kuch didn't make any threatening comments or gestures and asked repeatedly for a light for his cigarette, a sheriff's report said.
But Stewart told deputies he wouldn't leave.
"Don't make me shoot you," Stewart warned, according to the report.
Kuch took three steps toward Stewart and on the third step, Stewart fired, hitting Kuch in the chest.
>>> Clear warning, and movement to the shooter = righteous shooting.
Stewart had no other criminal history in Florida. Kuch has a history of trouble with the law, including most recently two charges of driving under the influence in 2007.
Kuch's father said his son spent a month in the hospital, with damage to his lung and heart. He's okay now, the father said, but the family feels that it has been denied justice.
>>> No, he's not. He's dead. Obviously he was a guy with problem that he should have had some help with. But not everyone gets saved.
"They just have blindly interpreted this law without concern to what actually happened," the elder Kuch said.
>>> Justice is blind, or it's supposed to be. My condolences to Kuch family on their loss, but don't go looking for Stewart to compensate for your loss because of your son's illegal behavior.
http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/prosecutors-drop-charges-against-pasco-man-who-shot-trespasser-in-front/1048262
Comments at site
-
This obviously could fall under the category of could vs should, but it's not like this guy wasn't given fair warning that his actions could be expected to result in unpleasant consequences if he didn't go away.
Could the guy shoot? Obviously, according to Florida law. SHOULD he have shot? I'm in no position to be a Monday morning quarterback.
-
There are a lot of areas here that could be debated with "woulda, shoulda, coulda." However, who was there, and who had to make the split second choices? Monday morning quarterbacking is fine and dandy when you aren't in the situation, but when faced with a threat we all are going to act in some manor. I don't care if he was drunk, appeared drunk, or was completely sober, an attacker can cover ten feet so fast, even with lead in their chest, that we don't have the luxury of shaking their hand, taking their pulse, checking their pupils and smelling their breath. We must act in an instant, and in a way that will affect many lives for a lifetime - no matter how much time is left in that life.
Personally I will read the story, build a situation in my mind, and say "what would I do?" However, I wasn't there and we are only reading limited descriptions, so I will not publicly debate this homeowners actions with newspaper hotheads.
-
>>> No, he's not. He's dead. Obviously he was a guy with problem that he should have had some help with. But not everyone gets saved.
I don't know Path, I think the guy is still alive. For now, anyway. If he keeps up his current hobby it's just a matter of time.
-
This is an example of why the "no retreat" castle doctrine is a good law. Personally, I think this was sort of a sketchy situation. Why didn't the shooter just stay inside and call the cops? Why go outside and confront him? But, as M58 says, I wasn't there, and I don't have all the facts. Neither would a juror and they would have to play Monday morning quarterback. The thing is this guy was doing something illegal, was intoxicated and caused a homeowner who hadn't signed up for any of this to feel threatened. None of this would have come to pass had our hero not gotten liquored up and ratteled door knobs at O'dark thirty. Its good the homeowner doesn't have to explain himself to a jury.
FQ13
-
>>> No, he's not. He's dead. Obviously he was a guy with problem that he should have had some help with. But not everyone gets saved.
I don't know Path, I think the guy is still alive. For now, anyway. If he keeps up his current hobby it's just a matter of time.
Not to rub it in Path, but the article did state that Kuch spent a month in the hospital. I think it's an important to remember that the use of deadly force will not always result in the death of the suspect.
It will be very interesting to see if either William Kuch or the Kuch family will bring a lawsuit against Stewart for William's drunken actions. It's a perfect situation for some lawyers to make some quick cash, so my guess is yes.
-
My bad, jumped to a conclusion not supported by the facts. He was shot, is still alive, hence the possible battery charge now dropped.
Mea culpa . . .
::)
-
This brings up a situation that bothers me more than anything else. It used to be, in Minnesota as recent as 15 years ago, that if you were breaking the law you forfeited all rights to sue. In this case William Kuch was breaking the law of trespass and had been both asked and warned, so under former case law would have forfeited all rights to sue.
-
This brings up a situation that bothers me more than anything else. It used to be, in Minnesota as recent as 15 years ago, that if you were breaking the law you forfeited all rights to sue. In this case William Kuch was breaking the law of trespass and had been both asked and warned, so under former case law would have forfeited all rights to sue.
Florida is a bit sketchier, but the principle applies. In a complicated tort case like this the jury needs to assign blame and cupability. I say its complicated because both parties did something that led to the injury, the victim by trespassing and the homeowner y shooting. Given that the incident began with unlawful behavior, that should be it. Culpability should be assigned here. I do find it interesting that the pending charge against the homeowner was battery, not attempted murder. This would indicate that the prosecuter had a certain sympaty for the homeowner from the get go. This will hopefully carry over into a civil trial as well, assuming a jury is like minded.
FQ13
-
Florida is a bit sketchier, but the principle applies. In a complicated tort case like this the jury needs to assign blame and cupability. I say its complicated because both parties did something that led to the injury, the victim by trespassing and the homeowner y shooting. Given that the incident began with unlawful behavior, that should be it. Culpability should be assigned here. I do find it interesting that the pending charge against the homeowner was battery, not attempted murder. This would indicate that the prosecuter had a certain sympaty for the homeowner from the get go. This will hopefully carry over into a civil trial as well, assuming a jury is like minded.
FQ13
Even if the homeowner wins, unless he counter-sues to recover legal costs, he'll quite possibly go bankrupt defending himself from this potential lawsuit. Too bad the situation doesn't end when they refuse to press criminal charges.
-
Even if the homeowner wins, unless he counter-sues to recover legal costs, he'll quite possibly go bankrupt defending himself from this potential lawsuit. Too bad the situation doesn't end when they refuse to press criminal charges.
In Florida the loser pays. It doesn't mean that the homeowner won't have to shell out big bucks for a lawyer upfront. Most lawers want $20K plus as a retainer for something thats going to go to a jury. It might not cost the much, and whats left over will be refunded, but they want to ensure that they will get paid when the client no longer needs them. Also, getting a judgement for legal fees is a different matter than collecting them To make matters worse, the homeowners insurance company enjoys the right of estopple. This means that they can step in and decide to settle up to the max amount of the guy's liabilty coverage whether he wants to or not. They can then drop him as a bad risk, and depending on how close to the coast you live it is darn hard to get home owners at any price. (mine comes with a $15K deductible for wind and water I only have it to keep the bank happy). All in all, he's home free on the scary stuff, but still by no means out of the woods. :-\
FQ13
-
In Florida the loser pays. It doesn't mean that the homeowner won't have to shell out big bucks for a lawyer upfront. Most lawers want $20K plus as a retainer for something thats going to go to a jury. It might not cost the much, and whats left over will be refunded, but they want to ensure that they will get paid when the client no longer needs them. Also, getting a judgement for legal fees is a different matter than collecting them To make matters worse, the homeowners insurance company enjoys the right of estopple. This means that they can step in and decide to settle up to the max amount of the guy's liabilty coverage whether he wants to or not. They can then drop him as a bad risk, and depending on how close to the coast you live it is darn hard to get home owners at any price. (mine comes with a $15K deductible for wind and water I only have it to keep the bank happy). All in all, he's home free on the scary stuff, but still by no means out of the woods. :-\
FQ13
Oh, I don't know. Having to cough up $20,000 on short notice is pretty damned scary to me.
-
I would like to think I would have taken a secure position, armed with an eye on the door, and the police on the phone, kept shouting ( don't come through that door ) and waited for law enforcement to take over. But what if I'm doing that and I hear glass break in another room, sit rep changes in a hearbeat. I am not going to condone or condemn what happened, just wait for the facts.
-
This really is too bad for both sides.
-
Had a situation a county over from me yesterday where a land/home owner shot one of two thieves trying to steal his harvested pecans out of his storage area. Pecan theft is a big thing in this area due to the large pecan crop and the price per pound at a dollar or more. They had stolen some from him the previous day and didn't get them all. So, he waited for them and the next day when they tried to steal some more, he shot and wounded one of the two men in both arms. At the time of the news story last night, charges were not expected to be filed against the home owner.
-
They are stealing his livelyhood. I don't have a prob with that. Same as some one stealing my tools.
-
What kind of idiot criminal stirs up trouble in a place called "Stagecoach Village"? It sound kind of like an old west type of place where you might be able to get yourself shot. My parents live in an area called Horse Thief Canyon - people seem awfully polite there.
-
Florida is a bit sketchier, but the principle applies. In a complicated tort case like this the jury needs to assign blame and cupability. I say its complicated because both parties did something that led to the injury, the victim by trespassing and the homeowner y shooting. Given that the incident began with unlawful behavior, that should be it. Culpability should be assigned here. I do find it interesting that the pending charge against the homeowner was battery, not attempted murder. This would indicate that the prosecuter had a certain sympaty for the homeowner from the get go. This will hopefully carry over into a civil trial as well, assuming a jury is like minded.
FQ13
FQ,
In FL the shooter CANNOT be sued by anyone if it is determined that he was within the law. As that is the outcome in this case (charges dropped) the shooter CANNOT be sued.
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)
-
I was wondering about this very point Haz. The guy WAS charged, but the charges were dropped. Does this no bill make him immune from suit? I would hope so, but my fear is that the initial charge (indicating the prosecuter found the shooting to be problematic) would be enough to open the courthouse door to the drunken fool. I hope that you are right, and the final determination that the action fell within the purview of the castle doctrine ends the matter. This is a tricky case, but from a policy perspective, its best for everyone if the homeowner wins on all fronts.
FQ13