Miami Homeowner Shoots Man Found Naked and Strangling Dog In His Home

Rottweiler (Canis familiaris) adult resting on the deck of a homeThis is not exactly your standard police report in Miami. A homeowner came downstairs and found an intruder in his home and shot him. What was a bit less common was the fact that the intruder was naked and in the process of strangling the homeowner’s pet Rottweiler when he was shot.


The homeowner came down at 5 a.m. when he heard the dog barking. He fired twice and hit the suspect once in the leg. The man then tried to bite the homeowners, police, and medical staff. Obviously drugs are suspected.

What is interesting about this case is that a dog is considered chattel and torts law bars the protection of property with force calculated to cause serious bodily injury or death. However, even without the so-called Castle doctrine laws, homeowners have a privilege of self-defense and jurors rarely question such privilege when encountering a man in a home. With the Castle Doctrine, such homeowners are allowed to use lethal force as a matter of statutory law.

The homeowner opened fire twice, hitting the suspect in the leg once. The homeowner held the man until the police arrived. The suspect will reportedly be charged with burglary of an occupied dwelling with assault, animal cruelty, resisting arrest with violence and lewd and lascivious behavior.

Source: NBC

35 thoughts on “Miami Homeowner Shoots Man Found Naked and Strangling Dog In His Home

  1. raff,
    Are you trying to say that when the Nobel laureates are announced, we don’t need to look for this guy’s name on the list?

  2. I’d like to say for the record that I don’t own a pool. Too much maintenance, especially when Rotts and/or drug crazed lunatics get caught in the filter. What a mess!

    Oh, wait, um, never mind.:mrgreen:

  3. Bottom Line First:

    AFAIK a naked burglar, choking the resident’s dog (the one with ears and four legs, NOT the one depicted in a former Congressman’s Tweet) are irrelevant to determining the lawfulness of the victim’s actions. That’s bonehead criminal law. But since you mentioned nudity, pets, and strangulation:

    Amendment to My Irrelevancies:

    — As I’m sure you’ve heard, some people have pet chickens, that they let have the run of the house. Imagine the confusion at the prosecutor’s office if the police report read:

    “The homeowner came downstairs and found an intruder in his home. The intruder was naked and choking the chicken. The homeowner shot him in leg.”

    — PSA Fantastique: A naked man strangling a dog would make a fantastic public service announcement for one of those “This is your brain on drugs” spot on TV. This would be gobs more memorable than an eggs sizzling metaphor.

    — Isn’t Miami where that face-chewing-off guy committed his heinous act?

    – The state that’s having a Burmese python hunt?

    – The state where the glove-dropping-guy chose to live (you know, “the wrong OJ”, aka “The Juice”).

    – Speaking of OJ, I’m now even questioning buying Florida orange juice. My paranoia is complete.

    Just In From My Thought Bubbles: I have self-declared myself persona non grata at all border entry points to Florida. Since my papers are no longer in order to travel to Florida, I won’t.

    (cont.)

  4. Just in: An example of when in your residence why you are allowed to defend yourself, with deadly force if necessary. This happened in my town two days ago, January 12, 2013:

    “Police in San Francisco have arrested a 25-year-old man who allegedly broke into a Telegraph Hill apartment on Saturday night and assaulted a woman who lived there.

    The suspect–later identified as Jovan Jones, of Marin City forced his way in, forced the victim to the floor, demanded money and property, and sexually assaulted the victim.

    A 911 call from a neighbor alerted police. Jones was found hiding in the backyard of a residence on Green Street at about 9:20 p.m. Jones was arrested for burglary, robbery, making threats, rape, false imprisonment and aggravated assault.”

  5. On the topic of self defense and the right to use deadly force for self defense:
    The dog was part of homeowner’s self defense and the dog was being attacked. Homeowner can kill the perp in self defense. It is the same as if the perp was beating the homeowners sword in homeowner’s hand. Attack on dog in home is attack on homeowner’s person. Ya dont have to get to the Castle Doctrine.
    The naked guy was also violating the law of the jungle. One does not enter a home naked. Or someone’s back yard. That is a violation of the law of the jungle. Violators are subject to being killed by the homeowner. The Law of The Jungle trumps any statute or common law. It is natural law. It is thus incorporated into the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments. One has a right to arm bears, be secure on one’s home, have equal protection of the law, due process, and a right to a fair trial, due process under the Fourteenth. The Ninth Amendment secures homeowner of a right of privacy in his own home and yard. El Sicko violated that by coming in naked and attacking the pooch. If I cant shoot a schmuck who comes into my home naked and who attacks my dog then I am moving to Cuba. And, I say this both as a dog in the present life and a humanoid from a prior incarnattion when I was a pacifist.

    • That naked strangler learned to be what he is by not observing what the right actions are not being taught that we have to live peaceably now to live peaceably forever. Jesus came to give us a forever. I order for people to value forever peace, and joy one must give it now. Society created the encounter of strangler, and shooter. The false power of the human hand,and false power of the gun. The human hand that strangled made the gun. Both is perceived by us as being power. Religions have not taught us that they are not power. Real power bad life. Have people prepare for what is not at this time seen will help people be better people that are seen.

  6. IF, homeowner had an armed bear guarding his house, instead of the dog. Then the bear could have killed the naked perp and the homeowner would be protected from criminal charge or civil action under his Second Amendment rights.

    • ” IF, homeowner had an armed bear guarding his house… protected from criminal charge or civil action under his Second Amendment rights.”

      Of course your are referring to his Second Amendment right to ‘keep bears’ … right.

      Or did I misunderstand your?

  7. Otteray Scribe wrote:
    It is a miracle the Rottie did not remove the perp’s “gene pool,” thus making him eligible for a Darwin Award.
    ~+~
    And a coup de grâce for that lineage.

  8. Justice Scalia, who predicates all of his judicial view upon what he perceives to be the intentions of the Framers of the Constitution has said at a lecture to some law students that the Framers were on this one occasion dyslexic and in the Second Amendment “intended” to say “The right to Arm Bears…”

    Just thought I would throw that into the discussion.

Comments are closed.