Judge: Homeowner had "right to resist" officers

[KBCraig]

Very good ruling. It's a shame he still came out of it with a felony conviction.

The two deputies who got their butts whipped by an unarmed 55 year old man in his underwear --recovering from bypass surgery!-- should have enough sense of shame to find new jobs. And the illegal arrests and unwarranted home invasion should result in them having to find new jobs.

http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs. ... /703140547

Homeowner had 'a right to resist'

Judge acquits John Coffin on 5 felony charges; Coffin gets time served on 6th.
By TODD RUGER

SARASOTA -- John Coffin won't spend any more time in jail for beating up two sheriff's deputies inside his house, striking one in the head with a Taser gun he took from the other.

Circuit Judge Rick De Furia said at Coffin's trial Tuesday that he doesn't condone the violence against the deputies.

But Coffin, 56, had a right to defend his family and property because the deputies had no right to be in Coffin's house in the first place, De Furia said.

"Law enforcement was responsible for the chain of events here," De Furia said. "I think in situations like this, officers become so frustrated they go beyond what the law allows them to do."

The fight started when Coffin heard his wife screaming in pain, went into the garage and saw two deputies arresting her on the floor.

The deputies were trying to serve Coffin with civil papers that had been given five days earlier. They had entered the garage even though they did not have a search warrant or arrest warrant.

And they arrested Coffin's wife, Cynthia, 50, on obstruction charges even though she had no obligation to follow their orders to bring her husband outside.

"The most critical is the fact the officers broke the law by stopping the garage door from going down," and then entering the garage, De Furia said.

A jury was picked for the trial Monday. But the judge granted a motion by Coffin's attorneys, Derek Byrd and Brett McIntosh, and acquitted John Coffin on five of six felony charges Tuesday morning.

Coffin pleaded no contest to the remaining charge of taking a Taser gun from one of the deputies during the fight.

Before handing down the sentence, De Furia asked how long Coffin spent in jail after his initial arrest.

"You spent eight days in the Sarasota County jail," De Furia said. "That's your sentence. No probation."

Relatives applauded, and Coffin walked out of the courthouse with only a $358 bill for court costs. The sentence surprised even defense attorneys, who had suggested De Furia sentence Coffin to probation.

Prosecutors had asked for more than a year of prison time because of "the totality of the case" and the injuries to deputies James Lutz and Stacy Ferris, whose name is now Stacy Brandau.

The two deputies testified about their injuries Tuesday -- three blows to the head with the butt of the Taser gun knocked Lutz unconscious.

"I just ask that he doesn't get away with this," Brandau told the judge.

Assistant State Attorney Jeff Young told the judge the case "could have been over in five seconds" if the Coffins "had simply come out and cooperated."

"That is a man who took it upon himself to beat up two police officers," Young said.

De Furia said that while he believed the deputies' mistakes were not intentional, the Coffins had every right to lock doors, try to close their garage door and not cooperate.

"What took place in the house was unfortunate," De Furia said, "but Mr. Coffin ... had a right to resist."


Here are two opinion pieces by the same columnist. The first is from shortly after the incident, and the second is after this week's outcome.

http://shedit.us.publicus.com/apps/pbcs ... 3/NEWS0103
http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs. ... /703160622

[HighVelocity]

"I just ask that he doesn't get away with this," Brandau told the judge.

Like the officers are getting away with blatant disregard for the law?

[jbirds1210]

Constitutional rights being openly violated v. a bump on the head from a taser.

I would gladly take a knock on the head from a taser instead of a man killing me for violating his rights and assaulting his wife. I think they cops were lucky.....

I agree that it is a shame the gentleman was convicted of anything.

[RPBrown]

But it doesn't appear that anything is being done about the 2 officers. What has an investigation turned up? Or has there / will there be an investigation?

It's things like this that give LEO a bad reputation and should be delt with.

I would also think that a civil suit should be filed in Mrs. Coffins case.

He should have been aquitted on all charges.

[txinvestigator]

You guys need to remember that this is all from a news report, and they seldom give all of the facts or report without a slant.

Also remember this occurred in Florida, not Texas.

[Liberty]

Is it true that under the new "Castle Doctrine" laws Florida has and that we are about to get, that the Coffin could have shot both deputy's and got away with it. I believe they qualified to be shot when they blocked the doorway and assaulted this wife. It definetly seems to meet the force criteria of Texas.

Don't try this at home folks!!!

[txinvestigator]

Is it true that under the new "Castle Doctrine" laws Florida has and that we are about to get, that the Coffin could have shot both deputy's and got away with it. I believe they qualified to be shot when they blocked the doorway and assaulted this wife. It definetly seems to meet the force criteria of Texas.

Don't try this at home folks!!!

You need to read the castle doctrine law better. You STILL have to meet the requirement that you reasonably believe (that would be a given if the person unlawfully entered the residence ) the deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent the imminent commission aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery, or the others use of unlawful deadly force.

Castle Doctrine still requires that you be preventing the imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery, or the others use of unlawful deadly force. It is NOT carte blanche to shoot anyone unlawfully on your property.

Which of those would it be reasonable to assume the Deputies were doing?

To address your question even further;

#1 It is illegal to resist a search or arrest in Texas, even if it is an illegal arrest or search.

#2 Interfering with the service of civil process is an arrestable offense in Texas.

#3 You can only use force against the UNLAWFUL use of force against you, and you can only use Deadly Force against the UNLAWFUL use of deadly force against you.


In Texas when the woman tried to close the garage door on the Deputies to prevent the execution of civil process, they would be justified in blocking the closing the door to arrest her for that offense. When she resisted the arrest, she could be charged with resisting arrest.

When the husband then interfered, he could also be arrested for Resisting Arrest, and from the article he could also be charged with Assault on a Public Servant, Interference with Public Duties, and Taking or Attempting to Take Weapon from Peace Officer.

[RPBrown]

If what you are saying is totaly true, then in effect any LEO has carte blanch to enter your home, handcuff you under pretense of arrest and do whatever they want as long as they are serving civil papers on someone that may or may not live / be on premisis at the time?

Based on what information was given, the homeowner had already been served these papers. If so, he may have thought that these were fake LEO's. Why else would they serve him again.

With only the information provided, I can't say I wouldn't do the same thing.

Not bashing LEO's as my S I L is one. But they are human and make human mistakes.

[txinvestigator]

If what you are saying is totaly true, then in effect any LEO has carte blanch to enter your home, handcuff you under pretense of arrest and do whatever they want as long as they are serving civil papers on someone that may or may not live / be on premisis at the time?

I did not write that AT ALL. .

Based on what information was given, the homeowner had already been served these papers. If so, he may have thought that these were fake LEO's. Why else would they serve him again.

I believe you misread the article. The Deputies had been given the papers 5 days earlier. He had yet to be served.

With only the information provided, I can't say I wouldn't do the same thing.

And in Texas, you would be convicted, IMO.

Not bashing LEO's as my S I L is one. But they are human and make human mistakes.

I agree with that. However, in Texas, unless the LEO uses unnecessary force before you offer any resistence, resisting is a crime. You sort out lawful search and arrest issues later, not on the street.

[KBCraig]

Based on what information was given, the homeowner had already been served these papers. If so, he may have thought that these were fake LEO's. Why else would they serve him again.

I believe you misread the article. The Deputies had been given the papers 5 days earlier. He had yet to be served.

I believe you misread, or didn't read the linked opinion pieces. Coffin had already been served those papers, but by/in a different county.

[KBCraig]

#2 Interfering with the service of civil process is an arrestable offense in Texas.

Are LEOs serving process in Texas authorized to enter a home without a warrant?

I have to point out that "not cooperating" is not the same as "interfering with". Finding, identifying, and serving the subject is the duty of the server, not of anyone else.

#3 You can only use force against the UNLAWFUL use of force against you, and you can only use Deadly Force against the UNLAWFUL use of deadly force against you.

We are talking about a Florida case, not Texas, but remember: the female deputy said she would have shot him if she'd had the chance. Given that this was an unlawful arrest after the deputies unlawfully forced their way into the home, such a threat would be an unlawful use of deadly force.

This was a process service on a civil matter, in which Coffin, the landlord, was evicting a tenant who didn't want to go.

In Texas when the woman tried to close the garage door on the Deputies to prevent the execution of civil process, they would be justified in blocking the closing the door to arrest her for that offense.

Do you believe you have the right to forcefully enter someone's home without a warrant in order to serve a civil process?

Kevin

[stevie_d_64]

...unless the LEO uses unnecessary force before you offer any resistence...

Seems to me in reading the news (not seeing the real evidence) that in Texas you are required to "reasonably" deduce the level of force used against you (or in this case a third party) and "reasonably" react with reasonable force to "stop" that unnecessary force or threat...

I believe you would (in this particular situation) not stand idly by while your wife was being "subdued" by people who will obviously not have to the time while doing so, to stop what they are doing, to identify themselves to you...

Regardless if you know of any civil actions (papers) pending, or to be served to you...

I certainly see what you have been saying in this thread...

If you want to hold your cards close in hand and not admit that if you were in this situation, would you not reasonably skewer two unidentified people rolling yer wife into a pretzle??? I'm cool with that...I'm not so convinced our wives would be reasonable with our posteriors after the fact...

But I happen to believe that most responsible people would know if they have some trouble coming, and not allow this situation to develop, so it is rather unlikely that any skewering would be necessary...And anyone found tussling with "Wife-Unit" didn't stop by for tea...I am comfortable with that pre-disposition...

[stevie_d_64]

"Txi", "Kevin"...

(in this story) as a civilian, reasonably determining if you should or should not respond to that force if you believe it immediately neccessary to to stop that force from injuring or causing death...We have that ingrained in the membrane from day one...

What I do not adhere to, in that moment, is determining if the force is due to a lawful or unlawful action by lawful authority...Thats for the court to decide...

Like I said previously, I would think responsible people would know if something like this is coming, and both sides of the equation will resolve the situation without escalation or threat of force...

Obviously in this case Momma didn't like someone coming to her and making an attempt to properly "serve" them with this civil notification (papers)...She attempted to close the door on them (officers) thinking that would stop the eventual suit (or whatever it was being served)...In which case the officers should probably left and not attempted to enter the physical premises to complete the task...If this is what really happened...

Here's the obviousl kicker...

I know Law Enforcement are commissioned to arrest someone if a crime is committed in their presense...If the woman assaulted them, then the bets are off...Unfortunately the man in this case (and we cannot assume what he witnessed either) came in halfway through the story...Maybe he knew something was up, maybe he didn't...

But if the judge in this case penalized with time served...Well, I think everyone got what was deserved...Lesson learned, maybe...

[srothstein]

Now, to throw in my two cents worth on this.

First, and most important, I am judging this by Texas law, and Florida law may be different.

The woman did not commit a crime, IMHO, by attempting to close the door when the deputies were serving the papers. I am not a Constable, who in Texas is responsible for this, and I did not find the rules on serving process in a quick search just now of the Civil Practice and Remedies Code. I do not believe that the officers are authorized to enter private property without consent to serve civil process. I emphasize that this is just a non-informed opinion though.

If the officers did not have permission to enter, then the woman did not commit a crime when she closed the door. The exact wording of the law is:

38.16. PREVENTING EXECUTION OF CIVIL PROCESS. (a) A
person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly by words
or physical action prevents the execution of any process in a civil
cause.

Even though she committed the physical act required, it did not prevent the execution since they could not enter anyway. It is debatable whether her refusal to cooperate with them, knowing he is in the house, would be preventing the execution. I can see arguments either way.

But, this is important to whether or not the officers were legally entering the house. If the courts have interpreted this as requiring her to cooperate, then the entry to arrest was legal. If the courts do not consider her refusal to cooperate as an act preventing execution, then the entry to arrest was illegal.

If the entry to arrest was illegal, then the officers were committing burglary. Burglary is defined (one way) as entering a property without the effective consent of the owner with the intent to commit an assault. If the woman had not committed the crime, then they were committing official oppression by arresting her (violating her rights) and the use of force to make the arrest was an assault. They clearly did not have permission to enter the property, thus committing a burglary.

If the officers were committing a burglary, then the man would have been justified in shooting them under Chapter 9 (use of deadly force to protect property allows for commission of a burglary).

But even more important, the question also comes up as to what the man knew at the time he attacked the officers. He did not know why they were in the house (remember he was in the bathroom until she screamed from the garage), just that they were trying to arrest the wife. This would also have been legal for many other reasons, reasons which could have legally allowed them to enter the house. Just as we should take into account what the officers knew at the time when they are involved in a case, we should only take into account what he knew at the time. He did not know the officers were illegally in the house, from what I read in the papers. Thus, he was not justified in using force against the officers.

But I really don't understand the judges ruling. Throwing out the charges of obstructing and resisting arrest, I can understand. But if he was justified in using force, he was justified in taking the Taser from the officers after they used it on him and hitting them in the head with it. If he was not justified in taking the Taser, he was not justified in using force. You cannot have it both ways. Either the man should have been cleared of all charges, or he should have been convicted of them all.

[dihappy]

Good points Stephan