# Justified vigilantism? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 24, 2019, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justified-vigilantism/835978 "2019-06-24T18:55:09Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justified-vigilantism/835978/141 "2019-06-28T18:13:33Z")
Do you think the police should give the guns back to her husband, perhaps immediately or in the near term? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 6:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justified-vigilantism/835978/142 "2019-06-28T18:14:42Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Sure. If there were an imminent grave threat, she would be morally and (probably) legally justified in stealing his guns as well as shooting him. That’s cute-Your example of when she might be justified in stealing his guns _can’t_ happen because she is imminent danger of being shot. How does that work? “Before you shoot me and my children, would you mind if I steal that weapon you are holding and any other weapons you might currently own?” :rolleyes: Now, can you think of any situation where she might be justified in stealing those guns where you aren’t insulting our intelligence? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justified-vigilantism/835978/143 "2019-06-28T18:21:08Z")
Depends on the outcome of the domestic violence case against him. Immediately? No, he can’t have guns when he is out on bail. Of course, I am hoping against hope that six months from now, they will not announce that they have reconciled, and she testifies at his trial and he testifies at hers. > [@Oredigger77](#): > > I won’t pretend to answer for Shodan but I can say for myself that I can’t think of any non-contrived situation where I think theft is moral. What if you are stealing from someone who will grow up to be Hitler? What if he was covered in glue?I am deeply upset - I can’t find the link, and it was one of the all-time classic threads. Anybody? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justified-vigilantism/835978/144 "2019-06-28T18:22:57Z")
[Here ya go.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=289696&highlight=shoot+kill) ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justified-vigilantism/835978/145 "2019-06-28T18:32:15Z")
> [@Oredigger77](#): > > I won’t pretend to answer for Shodan but I can say for myself that I can’t think of any non-contrived situation where I think theft is moral. I mean you could put something together where he was actively shooting and dropped his weapon and she grabbed it and ran off but outside of weird scenarios like that, theft much like rape is never moral. Assault, murder or kidnapping are crimes I can come up with ways to make them moral. > > Of course in thinking about the morality of theft I started thinking about Robin Hood type thefts but I think that makes a better story then reality and I think overthrowing the system (violence) is the morally correct action not theft. But this isn’t theft. Theft, unless you insist of going by the most strictest definition of “depriving someone of their property”, I mean the _mens rea_ of “theft” as a crime and the immorality of it is about benefiting oneself (or one’s family, or even one’s pet cause) by taking away the product of another person’s effort and labour. In Robin Hood’s case, he justified his thieving of another guy’s theft proceeds by “supreme interest of the nation” if you will, but it was still about using the money of Joe Farmer to do something Joe Farmer wasn’t party to. Suuuuure everybody wanted Richard back. Suuuure that made a big difference in their lives. Fuck off, Robin, you bourgeois would-be apparatchik. But in this case she didn’t take away her hubby’s guns to sell them, or profit from them somehow, or even to shoot him with. She simply was scared to be shot with them. It could just as easily have been “destruction of property”. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 6:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justified-vigilantism/835978/146 "2019-06-28T18:47:18Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Depends on the outcome of the domestic violence case against him. Immediately? No, he can’t have guns when he is out on bail. Sort of sounds like a victimless crime. Except, of course, for the Second Amendment brigade concerned about the feelings of those poor, poor firearms. ---
**Author:** ![sps49sd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a9a28c/32.png) [@sps49sd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sps49sd)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justified-vigilantism/835978/147 "2019-06-28T19:18:38Z")
Her doing anything with the car is probably limited by damage to the car and its probable location at impound. > [@Ravenman](#): > > Sort of sounds like a victimless crime. > > Except, of course, for the Second Amendment brigade concerned about the feelings of those poor, poor firearms. I’m a Bill of rights supporter, including the Second Amendment, and I don’t see what this case has to do with firearms rights nor any feelings that don’t exist. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justified-vigilantism/835978/148 "2019-06-28T19:18:52Z")
One of the aspects in proving theft in our state is that prosecution must prove either intent to deprive the victim of their right to property, or intent to appropriate the property for the use of any person not entitled to the property[SUP][1][/SUP]. It could be argued that the victim had temporarily lost his right to keep firearms, pursuant to court order. The defendant argues her intention was to hand the firearms over to the police. This should make the prosecutor think twice about charging defendant with theft. If theft is charged, “\*t is grand theft of the third degree and a felony of the third degree… if the property stolen is… [a] firearm”[SUP][2][/SUP]. There is a good faith defense for theft if she believed she had the right to the victim’s property[SUP][3][/SUP], but I don’t think that applies here. It is my understanding that defendant had an outstanding restraining order against victim. Therefore it cannot be reasonably argued that she had a _bona fide_ right to take the victim’s property, or at least not via trespass. Regardless, her public comments contradict a good faith defense. Without theft it is impossible to press charges for burglary, because burglary requires both trespass _and_ intent to commit another crime[SUP][4][/SUP]; however, proof of entering a structure “stealthily and without the consent of the owner or occupant thereof is prima facie evidence of entering with intent to commit an offense”[SUP][5][/SUP]. Given her station confession and related evidence proving her trespass, this again puts the burden on the defendant to prove she did not commit or intend to commit theft. If burglary is charged, it is a first degree felony because if the defendant “\*s or becomes armed within the dwelling… with a dangerous weapon”[SUP][6][/SUP]. Theft of a firearm, even without intent to use it, constitutes becoming “armed”[SUP][7][/SUP]. Consider also the minimum 3 year sentence for burglary while “possessing” a firearm[SUP][8][/SUP], or 15 years if it involved a semiautomatic firearm _and_ high-capacity detachable box magazine[SUP][9][/SUP]. Next we consider the charge of trespass. All that is required for the crime of trespass is to willfully enter without being authorized, licensed, or invited by the owner or lessee of the premises[SUP][10][/SUP]. Trespass of an immediately uninhabited dwelling is normally a misdemeanor of the third degree, but if the offender arms herself it becomes a felony of the third degree[SUP][11][/SUP]. The sentence for a third degree felony is not to exceed 5 years imprisonment[SUP][12][/SUP] and a $5,000 fine[SUP][13][/SUP]. So all in all, I would expect either a plea bargain on the trespass charge or no charge at all. Probably (hopefully) the latter. If she sues for false imprisonment however, I wouldn’t expect any mercy from the prosecutor’s office… ~Max [ol][li][F.L. Stat. 812.014(1)](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0800-0899/0812/Sections/0812.014.html) (2018)[/li] [li][F.L. Stat. 812.014(2)(c)](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0800-0899/0812/Sections/0812.014.html) (2018)[/li] [li]See for example _Rodriguez v. State_, 396 So.2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 1981).[/li] [li][Fla. Stat. 810.02(1)(b)](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0800-0899/0810/Sections/0810.02.html) (2018)[/li] [li][Fla. Stat. 810.07](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0800-0899/0810/Sections/0810.07.html) (2018)[/li] [li][Fla. Stat. 810.02(2)(b)](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0800-0899/0810/Sections/0810.02.html) (2018)[/li] [li]“We reject Hardee’s contention that the statutory requirement that the burglar be “armed or arms himself” means the gun must be ready to fire. A person having possession of a gun during a burglary is subject to a minimum mandatory sentence under section 775.087 regardless of whether the gun was loaded. We do not believe that the legislature intended a different construction of section 810.02(2)(b) which enhances the crime of burglary when the defendant “is armed or arms himself” with a gun.” _Hardee v. State_, 534 So. 2d 706 (Fla. 1988) (internal citations omitted)[/li] [li][Fla. Stat. 775.087(2)(a)(1.)](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0775/Sections/0775.087.html) (2018)[/li] [li][Fla. Stat. 775.087(3)(a)(1.)](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0775/Sections/0775.087.html) (2018)[/li] [li][Fla. Stat. 810.08(1)](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0800-0899/0810/Sections/0810.08.html) (2018)[/li] [li][Fla. Stat. 810.08(2)(c)](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0800-0899/0810/Sections/0810.08.html) (2018)[/li] [li][Fla. Stat. 775.082(3)(e)](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0775/Sections/0775.082.html) (2018)[/li] [\*][Fla. Stat. 775.083(1)(c)](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0775/Sections/0775.083.html) (2018)[/ol] ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justified-vigilantism/835978/149 "2019-06-28T19:49:07Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > \ > **Shodan** , would you stop being a disingenuous bad hombre, please ? It’s not funny, it’s not clever, it’s certainly not convincing, and it doesn’t trigger the libs. It causes muscle strain from all the eye-rolling at best. Might have wanted to check a bit closer. That’ll be a warning for insults, Kobal2. Don’t do it again. ---
**Author:** ![Oredigger77](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/oredigger77/32/3181_2.png) [@Oredigger77](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oredigger77)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justified-vigilantism/835978/150 "2019-06-28T21:09:05Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > But in this case she didn’t take away her hubby’s guns to sell them, or profit from them somehow, or even to shoot him with. She simply was scared to be shot with them. It could just as easily have been “destruction of property”. I’d disagree that staying alive doesn’t benefit her. Let’s say she was walking down the street and saw her husband walking the other direction. She ducks into a convenient sporting good store and grabs a bulletproof vest slips it on and walks out without paying. Once she passes her husband and makes it to the end of the block she takes it off and throws the vest away. Did she steal? ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justified-vigilantism/835978/151 "2019-06-28T21:37:01Z")
> [@Oredigger77](#): > > I’d disagree that staying alive doesn’t benefit her. Obviously she benefits from staying alive, but that’s imperative number one for most every person so that doesn’t really mean anything. Continued existence is not a _profit_. > [@](#): > > Let’s say she was walking down the street and saw her husband walking the other direction. She ducks into a convenient sporting good store and grabs a bulletproof vest slips it on and walks out without paying. Once she passes her husband and makes it to the end of the block she takes it off and throws the vest away. Did she steal? I’d say yes, because she didn’t return the vest and the vest seller didn’t owe her anything or did anything to justify her just walking out with one - the hypo becomes murky once you introduce uninvolved third parties. But I wouldn’t consider it theft if, for example, the guy had brandished the gun and/or pointed it at her, then left it on the table while he went to get himself another beer. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 28, 2019, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justified-vigilantism/835978/152 "2019-06-28T23:13:53Z")
> [@Oredigger77](#): > > I’d disagree that staying alive doesn’t benefit her. Let’s say she was walking down the street and saw her husband walking the other direction. She ducks into a convenient sporting good store and grabs a bulletproof vest slips it on and walks out without paying. Once she passes her husband and makes it to the end of the block she takes it off and throws the vest away. Did she steal? Yes, because the store was clearly deprived of something. It wasn’t like the store was going to kill her. All analogies are flawed, but I’d put this situation closer to someone stealing the stash of a drug dealer and giving it directly to the police. Had the thief sold the drugs to get the profit for themselves, I’d say they belong in jail. But for stealing something that the police are supposed to seize from the real bad guys, and turning around and giving the purloined goods directly to the police? Oh yeah, I’m going to look the other way for once. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2019, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justified-vigilantism/835978/153 "2019-06-29T01:05:28Z")
> [@Oredigger77](#): > > I’d disagree that staying alive doesn’t benefit her. Let’s say she was walking down the street and saw her husband walking the other direction. She ducks into a convenient sporting good store and grabs a bulletproof vest slips it on and walks out without paying. Once she passes her husband and makes it to the end of the block she takes it off and throws the vest away. Did she steal? I’d disagree that this is properly analogous to the situation under discussion. How about: What if she was walking down the street and saw her husband, who had just tried to kill her with a baseball bat the night before, walking the other direction. She knows he owns and carries a gun, but because they are in public, she thinks he won’t shoot her right then. As she passes him, she picks his pocket and takes his gun. She immediately turns it in to the police officer standing nearby, explaining that he isn’t allowed to have guns and he had previously made an attempt on her life ad she was just taking away what he wasn’t supposed to have in the first place, so that she could not be killed with it. Did she steal? ---
**Author:** ![Oredigger77](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/oredigger77/32/3181_2.png) [@Oredigger77](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oredigger77)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2019, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justified-vigilantism/835978/154 "2019-06-29T01:44:21Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Obviously she benefits from staying alive, but that’s imperative number one for most every person so that doesn’t really mean anything. Continued existence is not a _profit_. > > I’d say yes, because she didn’t return the vest and the vest seller didn’t owe her anything or did anything to justify her just walking out with one - the hypo becomes murky once you introduce uninvolved third parties. > > But I wouldn’t consider it theft if, for example, the guy had brandished the gun and/or pointed it at her, then left it on the table while he went to get himself another beer. That’s a fair point about bringing in third parties changing the situation. How about; she walking down the street with her husbands walking the other way so she dives into his car and drives off to a police station. Did she steal the car? Wait, Ravenman am I to understand that you’re ok with people robbing drug dealers as long as they don’t profit from it? So generally, you want people doing the police’s job for them as long as it’s just theft or do you want them arresting people too or shooting/tasing criminals? Bo, I think your analogy fails because she got close enough to him to to pick his pocket and nothing happened to her. At that point I think it could be proved she knew she was in no danger when she committed the theft. While I disagree with the lady’s excuse on this current case if her husband had gotten out of jail, gone home, spent the night, gotten up the next morning and went to work and then she robbed him, I would hope every one would agree what she did was wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2019, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justified-vigilantism/835978/155 "2019-06-29T02:38:14Z")
> [@Oredigger77](#): > > Wait, Ravenman am I to understand that you’re ok with people robbing drug dealers as long as they don’t profit from it? So generally, you want people doing the police’s job for them as long as it’s just theft or do you want them arresting people too or shooting/tasing criminals? If a single mother with no past criminal record only once sneaks into a dealer’s house to move the stash so it can’t be sold to her opioid-addicted former valedictorian son, and nobody is hurt, and the drugs are immediately turned into the police, you’d want that person in prison for impersonating a police officer and sundry other felonies? Not me. ---
**Author:** ![Oredigger77](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/oredigger77/32/3181_2.png) [@Oredigger77](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oredigger77)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2019, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justified-vigilantism/835978/156 "2019-06-29T14:32:05Z")
Yep, I’d be totally ok with that thief going to jail too. People should use the police services that we have not take on police roles. Whether its that idiot Zimmerman a couple of year back of this lady confiscating her husbands guns. I’m not sure I’ve encountered someone in favor of vigilantism before. Are you only in favor of non-violent police roles like booting your neighbors car for parking illegally or do you want people arresting and shooting their neighbor for beating up their spouse? ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2019, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justified-vigilantism/835978/157 "2019-06-29T15:31:27Z")
> [@Oredigger77](#): > > Bo, I think your analogy fails because she got close enough to him to to pick his pocket and nothing happened to her. At that point I think it could be proved she knew she was in no danger when she committed the theft. While I disagree with the lady’s excuse on this current case if her husband had gotten out of jail, gone home, spent the night, gotten up the next morning and went to work and then she robbed him, I would hope every one would agree what she did was wrong. She disguised herself; he didn’t know it was her. The point is, your analogy brings in a disinterested third party, while mine sticks to the people involved. [/shrug] In any case, I still don’t see any societal benefit to prosecuting this woman. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2019, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justified-vigilantism/835978/158 "2019-06-29T17:08:21Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Of importance is her confession at the police station. That might be ruled inadmissible in court, but to the prosecutor it shatters any presumption of innocence. I think she totally fouled up by agreeing when the cop asked if she committed “armed burglary”. I think she fouled up by admitting to breaking in at all. However, I don’t think she had intent for _armed_ burglary, regardless of how the law reads (I know, ignorance of the law is not a defense and all that). And I would not convict on a burglary charge at all. > [@Oredigger77](#): > > I’m still confused why she didn’t steal his car or wasn’t worried about him renting a car and running her down since that was his MO. > . Running her down by car was a weapon of convenience. Had he had a firearm in his car at the time, it is likely he would have used it, too. Of course that is just speculation, so I’m sure it will be dismissed. His car was probably impounded for the assault charge. Whereas it is frighteningly common for domestic abusers and men who have tried once to assault/kill their wives/exes/girlfriends to go get their guns and then come back later. So much so that federal law now bans sale of firearms to people with a protection order, and lawmakers are seeking giving the authority to police to confiscate any owned weapons immediately. It is much less common for said men to take their cars and run down their wives/exes/girlfriends at a later date. > [@Oredigger77](#): > > I won’t pretend to answer for Shodan but I can say for myself that I can’t think of any non-contrived situation where I think theft is moral. I assume you’re talking about theft _of weapons_, as theft of, say, food is simple to come up with a moral case. > [@](#): > > … but outside of weird scenarios like that, theft much like rape is never moral. This appears to dispute my assumption. Say you’re starving, out of work and homeless, living on the street do to unfortunate circumstances (irrelevant, but just to stop the fight against the hypotheticals, you’re a victim of the recent floods that has destroyed your home, and FEMA is doing a bang-up job of not being there yet, whatever). Your baby is starving. Do you steal some food to feed the baby (or feed yourself if you’re a woman to ensure you produce milk)? Would that be immoral? > [@Oredigger77](#): > > That’s a fair point about bringing in third parties changing the situation. How about; she walking down the street with her husbands walking the other way so she dives into his car and drives off to a police station. Did she steal the car? Yes, no, I don’t care, I’m not charging her with theft. > [@](#): > > While I disagree with the lady’s excuse on this current case if her husband had gotten out of jail, gone home, spent the night, gotten up the next morning and went to work and then she robbed him, I would hope every one would agree what she did was wrong. No, I don’t agree. Your argument is that because he didn’t _immediately_ set out to shoot her, he therefore has no intent to get around to shooting her. Sure, it muddies the water a bit, but maybe she didn’t get the opportunity before he was released, and was waiting for the coast to clear so she wasn’t confronting him directly. And maybe he’s stewing in his rage over her being such a man-hater that she got him arrested for running her off the road, so he’s planning just how to go about doing it and conceivably giving himself an alibi. Or planning to pull out all the money they have in the bank and going on the lam afterwards, so he has to get prepared to leave. There are lots of conceivably reasons why he wouldn’t immediately shoot her but still go on to shoot her soon thereafter. I read the description of Florida law concerning becoming armed during a burglary, but I really don’t think this fits the intent of the law. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2019, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justified-vigilantism/835978/159 "2019-06-29T17:42:43Z")
> [@Oredigger77](#): > > Are you only in favor of non-violent police roles like booting your neighbors car for parking illegally or do you want people arresting and shooting their neighbor for beating up their spouse? Who do you think I am, a libertarian? ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2019, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justified-vigilantism/835978/160 "2019-07-03T22:49:34Z")
[Charges have been downgraded to misdemeanor trespassing](https://apnews.com/eef3e6c66bfb415d9b43ffb1ac6ccb68). > [@](#): > > But State Attorney Brian Haas said at a news conference in Bartow that the case was more about a messy divorce than either of those issues and the marital discord was leading to charges against both spouses. > > The prosecutor said he was filing an aggravated battery charge against Joseph Irby for hitting his wife’s vehicle with his car at low speed a day before her arrest. > > “This is case of a highly contested divorce, escalating to the point of husband and wife being charged with crimes,” Haas said. And there’s much more to the story than the initial reporting included: > [@](#): > > The Irbys had gotten into an argument at their child’s day camp last month, and Joseph Irby followed his wife’s car, tapping it three times at low speed, Haas said. > > After her husband’s arrest, Courtney Irby obtained a temporary injunction for protection against her husband, saying she was in fear of her husband because of his texting and made no mention of his guns, the prosecutor said. > > Deciding she and her children needed to leave the area, Courtney Irby went with a friend to Joseph Irby’s home to retrieve a luggage key. Because of frustration that her husband had “cleaned out” their bank account, Courtney Irby took two watches and a GoPro camera with the intent to sell them, as well as items belonging to her children. She also took the two guns, Haas said. > > “Taking the guns was merely an afterthought,” the prosecutor said. > > When Courtney Irby returned to her home to finish packing, another friend found out about the guns and told Courtney Irby she should turn them over to the police, which she did, Haas said. In light of this new information, I think the charge of misdemeanor trespassing is appropriate. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justified-vigilantism/835978.md?page=7) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/justified-vigilantism/835978.md?page=9)