Teen defends PS3 with samurai sword

[XavierMace]

Damian and Deanne Fernandez were at home on an uneventful day in their northwest Miami-Dade County home, with their parents at work, when two men decided to break into their home. After the men went to the mother's room and grabbed several pieces of jewelry, they went to Damian's room to grab what they were truly after - a PlayStation 3.
Damian (13), a brown belt in Karate, was apparently more prepared than the burglar.

"Once I saw him take off running back, I jumped off my (bunk) bed and I grabbed my sword… and I just waited for him," he said.

After supposedly striking him in the chest with the sword the burglar "freaked out," according to Damian. Damian proceeded to chase him down the street with his samurai sword until the police arrived. A K-9 officer found the burglar located behind a neighbor's palm tree, while the second burglar got away.

Javier Cotera, 21, was arrested and is now due to appear in court next week facing three felony charges.

Here is why I bothered bringing this up.

The kid threatened the guy with deadly force, then chased him down the street.  Unless the laws in Florida are a lot different then here, that kid should be in a lot of trouble.  It says he struck him in the chest with it, which means we are talking about assault with a deadly weapon.

Don't get me wrong, the kid is obviously brave and I give him props for his reaction (the fact that he was able to react, not necessarily what he did).  But, there is no mention of the burglars being armed which means that would not have been a justified use of force.  Maybe they are cutting him slack because he is a minor (how is that normally handled?), but I haven't seen an mention of charges against him.  Whats the deal?  Am I just reading the story wrong or what?

[Vince]

Castle Doctrine

[PHX COBRA]

Castle Doctrine

.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_Doctrine

[XavierMace]

1) He wasn't attacked
2) He chased him down the street

Therefore, that falls outside the lines of Castle Doctrine.  He can't even really claim self defense because he chased the guy down the street.

[Cheeze_IZ_G00d]

Damian and Deanne Fernandez were at home on an uneventful day in their northwest Miami-Dade County home, with their parents at work, when two men decided to break into their home. After the men went to the mother's room and grabbed several pieces of jewelry, they went to Damian's room to grab what they were truly after - a PlayStation 3.
Damian (13), a brown belt in Karate, was apparently more prepared than the burglar.

"Once I saw him take off running back, I jumped off my (bunk) bed and I grabbed my sword… and I just waited for him," he said.

After supposedly striking him in the chest with the sword the burglar "freaked out," according to Damian. Damian proceeded to chase him down the street with his samurai sword until the police arrived. A K-9 officer found the burglar located behind a neighbor's palm tree, while the second burglar got away.

Javier Cotera, 21, was arrested and is now due to appear in court next week facing three felony charges.

Here is why I bothered bringing this up.

The kid threatened the guy with deadly force, then chased him down the street.  Unless the laws in Florida are a lot different then here, that kid should be in a lot of trouble.  It says he struck him in the chest with it, which means we are talking about assault with a deadly weapon.

Don't get me wrong, the kid is obviously brave and I give him props for his reaction (the fact that he was able to react, not necessarily what he did).  But, there is no mention of the burglars being armed which means that would not have been a justified use of force.  Maybe they are cutting him slack because he is a minor (how is that normally handled?), but I haven't seen an mention of charges against him.  Whats the deal?  Am I just reading the story wrong or what?

The thing is, a jury would have to convict him of whatever he was charged with. If you put a thirteen year old kid up against a 21 year old burglar, the 13 year old wins most of the time.

EDIT: (From the above Wikipedia article)

In Florida, Castle Doctrine applies to any place where a person has a legal right to be, not just their own home. Opponents of this Castle Doctrine law have referred to it as a "shoot first" law, implying that it allows people to "shoot first, ask questions later" any time they are frightened[4]. However, all laws pertaining to the use of deadly force still apply. The law still requires citizens to articulate the ability, opportunity and intent of an attacker to do grave bodily harm to a person exercising his or her right to self-defense.[5] Since the passing of this law, several other states have enacted similar legislation.

[LaserRacer]

In Florida, Castle Doctrine applies to any place where a person has a legal right to be, not just their own home...However, all laws pertaining to the use of deadly force still apply. The law still requires citizens to articulate the ability, opportunity and intent of an attacker to do grave bodily harm to a person exercising his or her right to self-defense
(from the previously referred to Wiki article)

As I read it... Castle Doctrine would in fact apply to the street he chased the burglar down. However, based on the original post, I don't see how the kid could indeed justify the use of deadly force.

There must be more to the story...either the burglars were armed, or the kid should be in some form of trouble.

[Kilo11]

or the kid should be in some form of trouble.

Do you realise what a cluster**** that would be? the last thing i want is to hear Al Sharpton or someone else griping about the system screwing over a 13 year old child.

But can you blame the kid? those things are like 500 or 600 a pop,lol jk

Also, to be honest i highly doubt that the child realised the ramifications of what he was doing. like Mace said props to the kid for not freaking out, but honestly most swords dont have a sharp edge on them meaning that when you hit something it'll hurt like hell but shouldnt cause any massive trama.

just my 2 cents

[KOBO]

To bad we do not use the law of common sense.

The kid has every right to chase off the punk; the potential danger of this situation clears the kid. With all the kidnappings that are getting national attention I would defiantly fear for this kid’s life. Granted it was just some jack ass after whatever he could steal, but you have no idea what can happen in that situation.

Of course this is the land of jack ass law suits so I imagine the guy would try to hit the kid up on assault with a deadly weapon and our courts are screwed up enough to hear it.

[IcePlatinumSky]

Not sure on the chasing down the street part, but here in Arizona you can use deadly force on an intruder in a home invasion. It’s in the aka Arizona Dirty Dozen laws of deadly force. The laws allow the use of appropriate force in FOUR circumstances when facts support its use of Self-defense, Defense of another person, Prevention of certain crimes, and for use in law enforcement.

The 12 when you can uses deadly force.
1. 1st Degree Murder
2. 2nd Degree Murder
3. Manslaughter
4. Armed robbery
5. Arson of an occupied structure
6. Kidnapping
7. Sexual misconduct with a minor
8. Child molesting
9. Sexual assault
10. 1st Degree Burglary
11. 2nd Degree Burglary
12. Aggravated Assault

Cant remember which Degree it is, but its Burglary of a home and/or burglary by a person who is armed. This is why I will never live in another state these laws rock. But, just because this is the law does not mean you have to blast away. Its always best to call 911, be a good witness, and stay in a safe place if you can.

[Cheeze_IZ_G00d]

In Florida, Castle Doctrine applies to any place where a person has a legal right to be, not just their own home...However, all laws pertaining to the use of deadly force still apply. The law still requires citizens to articulate the ability, opportunity and intent of an attacker to do grave bodily harm to a person exercising his or her right to self-defense
(from the previously referred to Wiki article)

As I read it... Castle Doctrine would in fact apply to the street he chased the burglar down. However, based on the original post, I don't see how the kid could indeed justify the use of deadly force.

There must be more to the story...either the burglars were armed, or the kid should be in some form of trouble.

Like I said though, a jury would still have to convict the kid of something, highly unlikely when you look at the circumstances.

[LaserRacer]

I realize that...all I am saying is that according to my rather limited understanding of the law, the kid had no legal basis for chasing the guy down the street wielding a sword. I am NOT saying whether it was right or wrong (not my call) but whether I see it as LEGALLY justified.

[XavierMace]

but here in Arizona you can use deadly force on an intruder in a home invasion

Only in a life threatening situation.  An unarmed man in your house does not constitute justifiable homicide.  No where in the law does it state you can use deadly force on an unarmed man.

but its Burglary of a home and/or burglary by a person who is armed.

You seemed to miss this point.  There is no mention of the burglars being armed.  If they were I really don't think they would be getting chased down the street.

The kid has every right to chase off the punk; the potential danger of this situation clears the kid.

Don't get me wrong, I agree.  However I don't think the law does.

Also, to be honest i highly doubt that the child realised the ramifications of what he was doing.

Once again, I agree but ignorance does not make you innocent.  I certainly don't want to see charges pressed against the kid.  However, if it had been an adult there certainly would have been hell to pay for it.

However, based on the original post, I don't see how the kid could indeed justify the use of deadly force.

Exactly my point.  Once again, we might not be getting the whole story (nooo, media; miss something?  Impossible) but I have not seen any indication of the intruders being armed.  The fact this 13 year old chased them down would seem to back it up.

The thing is, a jury would have to convict him of whatever he was charged with. If you put a thirteen year old kid up against a 21 year old burglar, the 13 year old wins most of the time.

Right, but there is no mention of charges being pressed.  I would certainly hope a jury would let him go, but there is no mention of him being taken into custody.

[GUNFIGHTER6]

I know the title of the article claims it was a sword, but it could have been one of those wooden swords used for training.  Since it states in the article he hit him with the "sword," in the chest, and the guy was able to run off, I doubt he used a live blade.  At the very least he still had the blade sheathed.  In either case I don't see him being charged with a crime, especially at his age.  Nothing about use of force says that you can only use the exact same level of force as your attacker.  It allows for you to escalate one level above in order to contain and control the situation. If this kid gets charged it will be the biggest miscarriage of justice since the Duke rape case, or OJ simpson being acquitted.