A Florida homeowner who called 911 during a violent home invasion Wednesday morning was transferred to voicemail at the height of the incident when the dispatcher tried to pass the call from the fire department line to police, MyFoxTampaBay.com reported.
Women could be heard screaming during the wait as the recording advised, "If this is an emergency, hang up and dial 911."
The homeowner, who was not identified, was heard in the recording telling the intruders to leave. He told the operator there were four of them who beat his wife and stepmother. He shot one.
Pasco County released a timeline that showed deputies were dispatched to the Port Richey home about three and a half minutes after the call. They determined the transfer did not hurt response time. However, the county said it is investigating the problem.
WTSP.com reported that three suspects were arrested in the home invasion and a fourth is still being sought. One suspect was found shot in the back hiding under a car, the report said.
At least the police determined the call transfer didn't hurt response time. So they were going to be beaten and robbed regardless. That's comforting.
yea but what if the police were able to be there in mins when seconds matter oh think of the moral high ground your family will have at the wake . the 4 antigunners will be in to say how wrong it is to try and prtect your family the goverment will take of that for you .
At least the police determined the call transfer didn't hurt response time
That, was the 'covering our own ass' part of the investigation.
Wait till you call 911, and the 911 dispatcher calls ya back over 30 minutes later, and asks you to drive out on to the main highway and give the Sheriff deputies directions to your house cuz they can't find it, and she can't provide the directions. BT--DT. Fortunately it was not a life & death emergency situation.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 06-15-2014).]
Originally posted by pontiackid86: in that situation 911 will be called after the bullets have stopped flying.
I agree. I'd rather deal with the situation, then call 911 for the "clean-up" afterward (assuming I'm still able to make the call). Because trying to talk on the phone with one hand and fight off the intruders with the other is too much of a hassle. IMO, that type of situation requires your full attention. And the police probably won't show up until it's all over, anyway.
I agree. I'd rather deal with the situation, then call 911 for the "clean-up" afterward (assuming I'm still able to make the call). Because trying to talk on the phone with one hand and fight off the intruders with the other is too much of a hassle. IMO, that type of situation requires your full attention. And the police probably won't show up until it's all over, anyway.
Plus talking on the phone gives away your location ( if its dark ). However we now have 911 txting here in my state.. In the right situation someone else could txt while you are off dealing with the intruders.
Does Florida's castle laws extend to the property? If not, homeowner may be in trouble.
[This message has been edited by Nurb432 (edited 06-15-2014).]
Originally posted by Nurb432: Does Florida's castle laws extend to the property? If not, homeowner may be in trouble.
I'm no lawyer, but IIRC if you shoot someone out in your yard, you better have a damn good reason. If you take a shot at someone just because they're on your lawn, you're gonna be in some serious trouble.
However, the rules change when said person breaks into your house. Home intruders are basically fair game, as long as you don't shoot him in the back while he's trying to leave. You're not required to retreat, or use equal force, or whatever.
That said, the guy in the story was well within his rights to shoot all 4 of the intruders, simply because they attacked his family. That's pretty much an automatic "fair game" trigger.
[This message has been edited by Blacktree (edited 06-15-2014).]
Ive never gotten in any trouble for shooting at thieves in my yard / driveway. Ive got police reports to prove it. Worse was once they confiscated a handgun for the period of their investigation. I got it back. They have never questioned my CCP or taken any other guns. One I fired a whole clip on and at the time Ohio did NOT even have a CCP available.
" The guy shot me in the back after i ran out of the house and i got under his car to hide"
Thus my question, and this case i mean 'land' not 'stuff'.
Most Castle Doctrine that includes property also includes land. Texas: SUBCHAPTER D. PROTECTION OF PROPERTY
Sec. 9.41. PROTECTION OF ONE'S OWN PROPERTY. (a) A person in lawful possession of land or tangible, movable property is justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to prevent or terminate the other's trespass on the land or unlawful interference with the property. (b) A person unlawfully dispossessed of land or tangible, movable property by another is justified in using force against the other when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to reenter the land or recover the property if the actor uses the force immediately or in fresh pursuit after the dispossession and: (1) the actor reasonably believes the other had no claim of right when he dispossessed the actor; or (2) the other accomplished the dispossession by using force, threat, or fraud against the actor.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property: (1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and (2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary: (A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or (B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and (3) he reasonably believes that: (A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or (B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 06-15-2014).]
