Cameras and Your Perimeter

This kind of thing is why I have security cameras.

When road rage follows you home. pic.twitter.com/jq1Wu5PNS2

— Wild Clips Daily (@Spidermonkeyy93) October 13, 2026

One thing the Social Media and Reddit posts on this get wrong is this is not a road rage incident. This is a crazed man who was going door to door and threatening those who lived there. The source of the video is here. It apparently happened in Miami in November 2021.

This morning this man started banging on my front door and making threats with some kind of weapon which he broke on my front pillars. We called the cops and he has apparently done this to other people and they are looking for him. We have no idea who he is but he is clearly dangerous – please be careful and avoid this man at all costs. Call the cops if you see him.

You are sitting at home and some moron is ringing your doorbell, screaming that he is going to enter your home and kill you. He is holding something that appears to be a crowbar, but claims he is going to come kill you, then brandishes it as though it was a long gun. This would create a reasonable fear that the man is armed and capable of carrying through on his threat.

We have seen this situation before. For some reason, people think that it’s entertaining or funny to create fear in the minds of people within their homes.

1. No matter what, do not open the door. There are a hundred things that can happen after the door opens, and most of them aren’t good for you. Maybe it IS a gun, maybe he has accomplices. Maybe those accomplices are using him as a distraction. In any case, you are in a secure perimeter and concealed or even behind cover. You have a clear view of this critter via camera. Advantage: you. Keep it that way.
2. If you have a gun, hearing protection, and body armor, get them. Take cover where you can keep a gun trained on the door while simultaneously watching him on the cameras. Do this before calling the cops. You don’t want to get killed while on hold.
3. Call 911. Tel the cops there is a man on your porch threatening to break in to kill you and has claimed to have a gun. Tell them you are armed, and locked in your home. The call containing the words “gun” and “armed” will not only place your call at the head of the queue, but will help establish a reasonable fear of death, bodily harm, and the imminent commission of a forcible felony. Those are important legal protections you can use later. Leave the phone on speaker so the 911 call taker can hear the unhinged maniac on the background, and more importantly, so can the recording of the call.
4. My front porch is screened in, with a screen door. That puts my front porch within the curtilage of my home. Even entering the porch with the stated intent to break down the front door to harm those inside provides me with important legal protections under Florida’s Castle Doctrine.

In Florida, you can use deadly force in your home if you reasonably believe you or another are facing imminent death or serious bodily harm, or a forcible felony is about to happen, and you are lawfully present in your home. Because the statute provides a presumption of reasonableness when an intruder is unlawfully and forcibly entering your home (or attempting to), the law strongly favors the occupant in that scenario.

So the questions that must be answered are:

1. Is it reasonable for you to believe the person is attempting to enter your home?
2. Are you lawfully in your home? (that is, are you breaking any laws, say by dealing drugs?)
3. Have they threatened to cause serious harm or death, and would a reasonable person believe them?
4. Is deadly force reasonably necessary to stop them?
5. Is the threat imminent?

I would say that the answers to 1, 2, and 3 are a definite yes. Question 4 is a yes. After all, he just told you what he is going to do: “I will break this shit down and blow your fucking head off.” That creates a reasonable fear that he is about to enter your home to harm you.
Right up until they entered the curtilage of your home.

Curtilage refers to the immediate area surrounding and associated with your home — the space that is considered part of the home for purposes of privacy and legal protection. Florida courts and the U.S. Supreme Court have described it as the area that harbors the “intimate activity associated with the sanctity of a person’s home and the privacies of life.”
That typically includes:

• The front porch, back porch, and deck
• Driveway and walkways immediately adjoining the home
• Fenced yard areas directly around the home
• Attached garage or carport

It does not usually include open fields, detached outbuildings far from the house, or unfenced areas that are visible and accessible to the public. Under both Florida criminal law and the Fourth Amendment, curtilage is defined as:

“The area immediately surrounding and associated with the home, which is considered part of the home itself for many legal purposes.”
— Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013); Oliver v. United States, 466 U.S. 170 (1984)

Florida courts have consistently held that curtilage is an extension of the home for purposes of:

• Fourth Amendment protections against unlawful search and seizure
• Self-defense laws (e.g., the “Castle Doctrine” under § 776.013, Fla. Stat.)

Courts look at several factors to decide whether an area is part of the home’s curtilage:

1. Proximity — how close the area is to the actual dwelling
2. Enclosure — whether the area is within a fence, wall, or natural boundary that encloses the home
3. Use — whether the area is used for domestic purposes (e.g., sitting area, grill, kids’ play space, parking)
4. Visibility and steps taken to protect privacy — whether the resident has taken measures to shield the area from public view (such as fences or hedges)

(See: United States v. Dunn, 480 U.S. 294 (1987); State v. Hamilton, 660 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 1995).)

Under Florida Statute § 776.013(1), the “dwelling” includes the building and its curtilage. Florida courts treat screened porches, lanais, or enclosed patios attached to the home as part of the dwelling. (See State v. Martinez, 700 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997)). This means:

• The castle doctrine protections — the legal presumption that you are in reasonable fear of imminent harm — extend to the immediate area surrounding your home.
• If someone unlawfully and forcibly enters your porch, attached garage, or fenced yard, you may be justified in using defensive force, including deadly force, under certain circumstances.

This means you can’t shoot someone for trying to open your door, standing on your porch, or walking up the driveway. Postal workers and Amazon delivery drivers are happy about this. However, if they kick in a fence or forcibly enter through a locked portal, such as slashing a screen, they have crossed over into breaking and entering.

At that moment, under § 776.013(2), Florida law presumes you have a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm, because:

• The person has unlawfully and forcibly entered your dwelling’s curtilage.
• You are lawfully present.
• You are not engaged in criminal activity.

That presumption legally justifies deadly force, unless one of the exceptions in § 776.013(3) applies (for example, if the intruder is a lawful resident, or if you provoked the incident, etc.).

So back to this situation: I don’t breach my perimeter for idiots. I sit safely inside and call the cops. I would be wearing electronic hearing protection and body armor. I would be armed with a long gun that has lots of ammo. Why? Because we carry a handgun if we think we might be in a gunfight. If we think we WILL be in a gunfight, bring a long gun, and bring friends with long guns. My wife would be safely in the closet, also with hearing protection, body armor, and armed.

Once the critters breach my perimeter to enter my rear yard, then enter my second perimeter to enter my back porch, this threat becomes imminent, making both my fear of harm and my use of deadly force reasonable. In a case like this, there would be at least one dead body and perhaps some blood trails for the police to follow when they eventually arrived ten minutes after I called for them.

Florida appellate courts have repeatedly found deadly force justified when:

• An intruder broke through a fence or gate and approached the home aggressively. (State v. Giles, 579 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991))
• A homeowner shot someone who forced entry onto a porch or patio. (Martinez, 700 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997))

In such cases, the courts held that fenced yards, porches, and patios are part of the dwelling — the “castle” — so the presumption of reasonable fear applies. If the intruder crossed into your yard and made explicit death threats, the standard of “reasonable fear” would almost certainly be satisfied — even if the intruder had not yet crossed the threshold.

It’s a great reason to have a fenced yard and a screened in porch with a locked door, even if the lock is flimsy like the ones found on a screen door. Once he begins trying to force your main door, I believe you are on rather firm self defense territory.

Relevant Cases

State v. Martinez, 700 So. 2d 142 (Fla. 2d DCA 1997) Martinez shot an intruder who broke through a screened porch attached to his home late at night. The state argued the porch was not part of the “dwelling,” so deadly force was not justified. The court held that the attached, screened porch was part of the dwelling’s curtilage. The homeowner was protected under the castle doctrine. The court reasoned that a porch “integrated with the home’s living space” and enclosed by screens “serves the same privacy and security functions as the interior.”

State v. Hamilton, 660 So. 2d 1038 (Fla. 1995) A man was shot in a fenced backyard after threatening and attempting to enter the home. The issue was whether the fenced yard counted as the home’s “curtilage.” The Florida Supreme Court held that a fenced backyard was part of the dwelling’s curtilage for self-defense and burglary statutes. The fence “manifested an intent to exclude the public and protect the area as part of the home.”

State v. Giles, 579 So. 2d 792 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991) A homeowner shot a man trying to break into the house after entering the yard aggressively and ignoring commands to leave. The court found that deadly force was justified because the intruder’s actions created a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm. The “no duty to retreat” principle applied — the homeowner was lawfully in his dwelling.

Weiand v. State, 732 So. 2d 1044 (Fla. 1999) A woman shot her abusive husband inside their shared home and was prosecuted for murder. The case helped establish Florida’s “no duty to retreat” inside one’s home rule (before Stand Your Ground). The Florida Supreme Court recognized the castle doctrine as firmly established: you are not required to retreat in your home before using deadly force against an aggressor posing imminent danger.

State v. Hill, 95 So. 3d 434 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012) A man shot someone outside his home during a violent confrontation. The court examined whether the shooter could claim immunity under § 776.032 (the Stand Your Ground immunity statute). The court reaffirmed that § 776.012(2) justifies deadly force when a person reasonably believes it’s necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm — even outside the home, if the shooter has a right to be there and is not engaged in a crime.