PDA

View Full Version : FL law protects homeowner who shot woman in SUV


Doggieman
May 1, 2009, 05:09 PM
Here's an article from CNN. The interesting part, IMHO, is the last Brady campaign quote:

from http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/30/florida.shooting.law/index.html

--------------------------------------
MIAMI, Florida (CNN) -- Authorities do not plan to file charges against a Florida orange grove owner who fatally shot a 21-year-old woman, saying he is protected under the state's controversial "no retreat" law.

Bullet holes pocked the windshield of the crashed SUV, and blood stained he passenger seat.

But the woman's boyfriend faces second-degree murder charges in her death, because the woman was shot to death during an alleged felony -- the theft of an SUV.

Tony Curtis Phillips, 29, didn't fire a single shot. He didn't even know his girlfriend, Nikki McCormick, was dead until police showed him an online news story.

Police said McCormick accompanied Phillips as he attempted to steal the SUV from a barn in an orange grove near Wahneta, Florida, before daylight Tuesday.

Grove owner Ladon "Jamie" Jones opened fire as the SUV approached him, according to an affidavit released by the Polk County Sheriff's Office. Phillips fled; McCormick was shot in the head and later died.

Authorities said Jones is protected by Florida's "no retreat" law, which gives him the right to use lethal force if he reasonably believes his life is in danger. Phillips, however, faces charges because police allege he was committing felony grand theft auto at the time of McCormick's death.

"Because his conduct caused her death, he gets charged with a felony," Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd said.

Phillips was arrested late Tuesday in Polk County, near Lakeland, after a day on the run. Police said he didn't believe McCormick was dead at first, telling officers, "Of all the times you've questioned me, this is a nasty trick you're playing on me this time." He agreed to cooperate if detectives could prove she was dead.

Judd said detectives called up the shooting story on the local newspaper's Web site and "let him read it online, and that's when he broke down and cried, and gave us a confession," Judd said.

According to the affidavit, Jones heard his Toyota Land Cruiser, parked in the barn at his orange grove, start up before daylight Tuesday. Jones told police he grabbed his gun, a 9mm that he keeps with him while working at the grove. He said he could see two people in the SUV as it backed out of the barn, according to the affidavit. He said he saw the passenger's arm reach outside the vehicle, and believed that person might be holding a gun.

The Land Cruiser stopped directly in front of him, Jones said in the affidavit. He said he raised his gun and pointed it at the occupants, shouting "Stop," but the vehicle appeared to be moving directly toward him.

"Fearing for his life, he then fired what he thought to be six to eight rounds into the front windshield of the vehicle," the affidavit stated.

The vehicle backed up at high speed, crashed through a fence and ended up in a ditch. Jones told police a man jumped out of the SUV and ran away.

Sheriff's deputies found McCormick inside the vehicle with a bullet wound to her head. She was taken to Lakeland Regional Medical Center, where she died.

Jones did not return a call from CNN seeking comment.

Authorities will forward their information to prosecutors, Judd said, but are "not going to file any charges [against Jones] at this point, because we don't see any reason to arrest Mr. Jones," Judd said. "... It appears, at this point in the investigation, Mr. Jones was completely, legally justified in his actions."

A Polk County judge on Thursday ordered Phillips held without bond. A public defender was appointed to his case.

Polk County Public Defender J. Marion Moorman declined to comment on the charges to CNN. "We will, of course, be interviewing the client very soon, and will be undertaking his defense from there," he said.

Phillips told police he assumed McCormick had also gotten out of the vehicle and run away, according to the affidavit. He said he was sorry for what happened "and said he knew he was partially responsible for her death," the affidavit said.

Polk County State Attorney's Office spokesman Chip Thulberry said his office will review the case when the sheriff's investigation is completed.

The Brady Campaign to prevent Gun Violence says Florida is one of 16 states that have enacted "no retreat" laws, which some call "shoot-first" laws. The laws extend the right to use deadly force beyond a person's home and into public places.

"The shoot-first law is not needed," said Brian Malte of the Brady Campaign. "This person, regardless of the situation, may have done the right thing, but he cannot be prosecuted for doing something wrong if he hit an innocent bystander," he said.

Other groups stand by the "no retreat" laws.

"At the moment a crime occurs, victims don't have the luxury of time," said Andrew Arulanandam of the National Rifle Association. "They have seconds to decide on a course of action to protect their lives and their families. This law provides law-abiding people with options."
--------------------------------------

What's interesting to me is that even the Brady Campaign admitted that the guy "did the right thing" in shooting at the SUV and only complained that he ran the risk of hitting a bystander. I think a couple of years ago the Brady Campaign would have been very vociferous about what a terrible tragedy that an accomplice to grand theft was killed while committing the crime.

Kind of shocking really.

Hkmp5sd
May 1, 2009, 05:18 PM
Notice that Sheriff Judd didn't even try to arrest the homeowner as many agencies would have done. That's why I voted for him.

Don't forget, he is also nationally famous as documented in his SNOPES (http://www.snopes.com/crime/cops/judd.asp) article.

P.S. My brother works for him as a deputy. :)

Doggieman
May 1, 2009, 05:21 PM
classic, I remember that quote :D

hogdogs
May 1, 2009, 05:23 PM
Did I miss something? He also shot an innocent bystander as well as the accomplice to felony GTA?
Brent

Doggieman
May 1, 2009, 05:24 PM
no, the Bradies were only bitching that he "ran the risk" of doing so ;)

hogdogs
May 1, 2009, 06:44 PM
"The shoot-first law is not needed," said Brian Malte of the Brady Campaign. "This person, regardless of the situation, may have done the right thing, but he cannot be prosecuted for doing something wrong if he hit an innocent bystander," he said.
I was being sarcastic... In BOLD he is implying that the shooter was protected from charges for shooting the passenger who was obviously far more than an innocent bystander.
Brent

Dave P
May 1, 2009, 06:53 PM
the state's controversial "no retreat" law


Uhh, no it's not controversial.

Go away. Leave us alone.

stilettosixshooter
May 1, 2009, 10:03 PM
Did anyone see the picture of the SUV? The shots were both well on the passenger side of the winshield.

More target practice! Of course, not bets on how accurate I will be if someone is trying to mow me down with my own stolen vehicle, but it struck me as odd how far-off the shots were.

Don H
May 1, 2009, 10:40 PM
Did anyone see the picture of the SUV? The shots were both well on the passenger side of the winshield.

More target practice!

Since Jones stated that he thought the passenger was armed (see quote below) it seems reasonable that he would toss a couple of defensive shots at that passenger. The photo doesn't clearly indicate whether he shot through the windshield on the driver's side also.

He said he saw the passenger's arm reach outside the vehicle, and believed that person might be holding a gun.

stilettosixshooter
May 1, 2009, 10:56 PM
Aha, missed that part. NM!

Let's get the facts
May 3, 2009, 08:21 AM
I guess the media forgot to mention that this began as a drug deal gone bad.

hogdogs
May 3, 2009, 08:32 AM
Are you saying that the shooter was involved in a drug deal with the car thief? If you don't mind answering... was it meth?
I do realize there is often 2 sides to every story. I also realize that in the honest, legal world a business deal gone bad goes to court. When folks choose the nefarious life they are at risk of many things going wrong.
Brent

Hkmp5sd
May 3, 2009, 08:44 AM
I guess the media forgot to mention that this began as a drug deal gone bad.

Then the facts will come out when the State's Attorney reviews the case and decides on any charges.

Seems unlikely though. The first thing Phillips would have been yelling to save himself was drug deal and CNN just loves drugs vs. guns stories. And not one of the dozen reporters on the scene mentions drugs? None found on any persons involved or in the vehicle? No large sums of money laying around?

zonamo
May 3, 2009, 09:24 AM
Arizona is one of those states where there is no duty to retreat if force is otherwise justified, but I am not aware of anything in our law that would grant you immunity from responsibility for hitting a bystander.

Is there something different in the way the Florida law reads :confused:

csmsss
May 3, 2009, 09:41 AM
I guess the media forgot to mention that this began as a drug deal gone bad.Setting aside how you make this statement with no foundation or corroboration of any kind, how does this make her death any more regrettable?

Car theft AND narcotics trafficking? Good riddance, and a damn shame the driver didn't get it, too.

Hkmp5sd
May 3, 2009, 09:46 AM
1. She was not a bystander. She was participating in the crime.

2. In Florida, in most instances I can remember, if an innocent is hit during the commision of a crime, the death is blamed on the criminals that started the crime. Technically, their crime is what resulting in the death of the bystander.

Of course, you are still responsible for the bullets you fire. If you do something stupid that causes the bystanders death other than simply missing the BG, you can be charged. As LEOs tend to be in more shootouts than CCW holders, they tend to hit more bystanders. But you rarely see one charged.

Double Naught Spy
May 3, 2009, 10:02 AM
The passenger was my family member
I guess the media forgot to mention that this began as a drug deal gone bad.

So your family member was involved in a bad drug deal resulting in her stealing an SUV that was used to try to run down the SUV's owner? Man, it must be tough to have family members who are that hard core into crime.

And you know this was a drug deal gone bad because you were part of it?

jdc1244
May 3, 2009, 10:14 AM
That's why I voted for him.

As did I.

FWIW this is a non-issue here.

Wildalaska
May 3, 2009, 10:44 AM
Only in civilized countries like China, the US and the Afghan Frontier is there a death penalty for theft, except that in the US and the Afghan frontier it's meted out by individuals acting in accord with ideology.

If the Brady folks wanted to be constructive, they would push for laws outlawing the use of deadly force to prevent simple theft. They would get the support of most folks.

On the facts here, self defense shoot. On the morality here, Buddha will judge the homeowner. I dont speak for him, but I suspect cockroach in the next life.

It was a vehicle, insured. Woweo

WildpackingsomebagsandgettingreadyforaweekofeelsakiandnoodlesAlaska TM

OuTcAsT
May 3, 2009, 11:40 AM
Only in civilized countries like China, the US and the Afghan Frontier is there a death penalty for theft, except that in the US and the Afghan frontier it's meted out by individuals acting in accord with ideology.

Yup, Glad I live in one of those countries that recognizes my right to do so.

the use of deadly force to prevent simple theft.

Um, no Counselor, to wit;

He said he could see two people in the SUV as it backed out of the barn, according to the affidavit. He said he saw the passenger's arm reach outside the vehicle, and believed that person might be holding a gun.

The Land Cruiser stopped directly in front of him, Jones said in the affidavit. He said he raised his gun and pointed it at the occupants, shouting "Stop," but the vehicle appeared to be moving directly toward him.

"Fearing for his life, he then fired what he thought to be six to eight rounds into the front windshield of the vehicle,"

This looks more like a defense against ADW to me?

It was a vehicle, insured.

Unless said vehicle is rolling directly at you, and someone may have another weapon pointed at you
as well.



OuTifourlegalsystemissoflawedperhapsyoushouldstayinniponcAsT

Mike Irwin
May 3, 2009, 12:19 PM
" The passenger was my family member
I guess the media forgot to mention that this began as a drug deal gone bad."

You know, I'm sorry for your family's loss, but this incident calls out one thing in spades...

Sometimes bad things happen to people who are involved in bad things.

That said, your evidence to support the allegation that this was a drug deal gone wrong is what, exactly?

Have you contacted the police to tell them that the orchard owner was allegedly involved in a drug deal and provided them with your evidence?

OldMarksman
May 3, 2009, 12:25 PM
Only in civilized countries like China, the US and the Afghan Frontier is there a death penalty for theft, except that in the US and the Afghan frontier it's meted out by individuals acting in accord with ideology.

Not sure what you are trying to say, Alaska.

In Texas, one may use deadly force to protect property, but only at night and if there is no other way. And no, I don't thinks that's reasonable.

In Georgia, one may use deadly force to protect property, and only if the act involves the prevention of a forcible felony--not theft. Reasonable? To the extent that the forcible felony actually endangers the actor himself, yes.

In the other forty eight ? No. Now, one often hears that so called castle laws permit the use of deadly force to "protect property," such as one's home or auto. However, since the actor must be within the home or auto in order to use deadly force lawfully, I thinks it's clear that the intent of those laws is to help in a defense of justifiability for self-preservation.

Do not confuse a stand-your-ground law (no need to retreat from an armed attacker) with a law that states that unlawful entry, particularly if tumultuous or with force, constitutes evidence that a person inside the car or dwelling is in imminent danger of death or imminent bodily harm

Deadly force to prevent simple theft? Unlawful, except in Texas at night under limited circumstances.

Had it been clear that the grove owner fired to protect his property, one can rest assured that he would have been charged with murder. And of course depending on what the evidence shows, that might still happen

The accomplice is being charged with grand theft auto, but that didn't bring about the shooting, according to the affidavit mentioned in the report.

The shooter claimed self defense. The only way I see for Florida's stand your ground law to enter into it is that it would obviate the need for him to try to outrun the person chasing him with the SUV.

It's all based on a report. Wait until the facts come out. But do not erroneously presume that Florida permits citizens to impose "death penalty for simple theft." The use of deadly force to prevent theft is unlawful in Florida.

I have no idea what the Brady fellow is trying to say about prosecution for hitting an innocent bystander. If a shooting is justified, the shooter is not criminally liable for hitting an innocent bystander unless he acts recklessly, but he is not shielded from civil liability. However, I saw nothing in the report about any bystanders being hit.

csmsss
May 3, 2009, 12:26 PM
It was a vehicle, insured.And your point is....what? That something that's insured isn't worth defending? Lots of people carry life insurance. Are their lives not worth protecting because there's an insurance company paying someone off at the end?

Ridiculous. The idea that some crimes don't matter and shouldn't be contested because an insurance company will compensate the victim afterwards is ludicrous, and a perfect example of what is wrong with our society.

Wildalaska
May 3, 2009, 01:44 PM
Ridiculous. The idea that some crimes don't matter and shouldn't be contested because an insurance company will compensate the victim afterwards is ludicrous, and a perfect example of what is wrong with our society.

The additude that one should use or initiate the use of deadly physical force over posessions is a prefect example of whats wrong with mankind

Not sure what you are trying to say, Alaska.


I'm trying to say that some stupid girl is dead because she chose to hangout with a theiving numbnuts who happened to pick a Rambo homeowner who, feeling probably that he was justified 'cuz he was on his property, chose to escalate the situation by running down with his 19 shot manhood when ist just a freaking car and 911 is 3 numbers

I said on the facts it seemed to be a good shoot. On the morals, he will be reincarnated with a shiny carapace scuttling under the mouldings of a cold water flat in the Lower East side.

And don't tu quoque me on the thief

OuTifourlegalsystemissoflawedperhapsyoushouldstayinniponcAsT

It isnt our legal system its the mindset of some gun owners. And if SWMBO wasn't with me I would:p

WildIHATETOFLYAlaska TM

Al Norris
May 3, 2009, 01:51 PM
Let's simmer down folks.

We don't have all the facts of the case to make a decision, one way or another. Shall we let the Florida DA do this?

We all have our opinions, so let's not devolve into ad hominems, because of differeces of said opinions.

Mike Irwin
May 3, 2009, 02:04 PM
"I'm trying to say that some stupid girl is dead because she chose to hangout with a theiving numbnuts who happened to pick a Rambo homeowner who, feeling probably that he was justified 'cuz he was on his property, chose to escalate the situation by running down with his 19 shot manhood when ist just a freaking car and 911 is 3 numbers"

"19 shot manhood"

You know, coming from someone who sells firearms and firearms accessories for a living, in a state that allows you to carry without any sort of background check at all, is rather shocking.

At best, it would appear to make you, at best, an opportunist, at worst a blatant hypocrite.

It also seems as if you are saying that the woman had zero culpability in this entire deal. While it's unknown exactly what she knew, I'd have to say that she knew that she and her boyfriend weren't there for a social call of tea and crumpets.

csmsss
May 3, 2009, 02:13 PM
The additude that one should use or initiate the use of deadly physical force over posessions is a prefect example of whats wrong with mankindIs that right? Then I'm sure you won't mind if I come to your store and relieve you of all your firearms while you refrain from defending them?

Wildalaska
May 3, 2009, 02:14 PM
It also seems as if you are saying that the woman had zero culpability in this entire deal. While it's unknown exactly what she knew, I'd have to say that she knew that she and her boyfriend weren't there for a social call of tea and crumpets.

Seems means assumes. Please read again, noting the words I used for her: "stupid" and "chose". Niether warrant what happened to her, nor would intentional criminality

You know, coming from someone who sells firearms and firearms accessories for a living, in a state that allows you to carry without any sort of background check at all, is rather shocking.

Really? One loses one humanity based on the fact that one works in a gunshop? Living in a state that allows free and open/concealed carryshould make one jump up and cheer everytime some homeowner pops some skell (or some skells companion)?

At best, it would appear to make you, at best, an opportunist, at worst a blatant hypocrite.

And being a mod gives you the right to toss ad hominems?

WildofftofindenglishbooksAlaska TM

Mike Irwin
May 3, 2009, 02:28 PM
"One loses one humanity based on the fact that one works in a gunshop?"

Where's the humanity in aiding and abetting those who may end up acting in a manner that is so abhorrent to you?

If someone uses a gun that you have sold him to kill someone who is stealing incidental property, by your own standards are you not as morally culpable as the individual who pulled the trigger?

Or have you been able to build yourself a psychological firewall between your actions and the potential actions of one of your customers, and once that gun leaves your hands your moral compass swings right back to true north?

So, you don't think you're an opportunist or a hypocrite, and want to claim that I'm attacking you?

Let's see...

Opportunist - "the policy or practice, as in politics, business, or one's personal affairs, of adapting actions, decisions, etc., to expediency or effectiveness regardless of the sacrifice of ethical principles."


You sell guns to people who may end up using them in defense of property, an action that, as you have made very clear, is morally repugnant to you and that you believe should be illegal.

Would you care to explain how is that not applicable to your actions of selling firearms to those who may use said firearm for defense of property in opposition to your stated views?


Hypocrite - "a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs."

Would you care to explain how is that not applicable to your actions of selling firearms to those who may use said firearm for defense of property in opposition to your stated views?

And, as you told me, please read again.

This is what I actually said: "At best, it would appear to make you, at best, an opportunist, at worst a blatant hypocrite."

I didn't say that you were an opportunist or a hypocrite, I said your actions, as opposed to your words, make it SEEM as if you are.

OuTcAsT
May 3, 2009, 02:36 PM
We all have our opinions, so let's not devolve into ad hominems, because of differeces of said opinions.

And being a mod gives you the right to toss ad hominems?

I don't believe I have seen an ad hominem against anyone, at least not as defined;

Argumentum ad hominem is the logical fallacy of attempting to undermine a speaker's argument by attacking the speaker instead of addressing the argument. The mere presence of a personal attack does not indicate ad hominem: the attack must be used for the purpose of undermining the argument, or otherwise the logical fallacy isn't there. It is not a logical fallacy to attack someone; the fallacy comes from assuming that a personal attack is also necessarily an attack on that person's arguments.


No one is attacking anything except the argument put forth that someone, anyone, on their own property, who happens to be armed when they encounter a direct physical threat, is a "Rambo". Or that using a weapon to defend yourself is some sort of Freaudian expression.

To point out the hypocrisy of the person forwarding the argument is also not classic ad hominem as it directly effects that persons' credibility in the argument.


ETA: I guess the argument could be made that a liquor store owner could also be against drunk driving, but that would not be the same, as the store owner would be for responsible drinking. In this case the owner is for buying the liquor, then keeping it in the cabinet under all circumstances.

hogdogs
May 3, 2009, 03:00 PM
Wild, The vehicle is an older SUV, owned by a farmer, likely not insured against theft. my ride is not insured against theft as the annual cost exceeds the value of said ride. It is also our only means of motorized transportation. I would never kill some one for trying to syeal it but I will stand in front of it and kill the person attempting to run me over rather than stop. 911 is not a vehicle disabling device so I have no clue how 911 stops a vehicle theft. Maybe you live in a place where the rare stolen vehicle is always returned undamaged and fully driveable.

The farmer shot into his vehicle to prevent them from running him over.
But he could have jumped to safety? Yes he could but he chose to use his right to stand his ground.
Brent

JuanCarlos
May 3, 2009, 03:46 PM
And your point is....what? That something that's insured isn't worth defending? Lots of people carry life insurance. Are their lives not worth protecting because there's an insurance company paying someone off at the end?

Do I need to go ahead and point out the obviously false comparison being made here?

Because I can.

But really, I shouldn't have to.

Wild, The vehicle is an older SUV, owned by a farmer, likely not insured against theft. my ride is not insured against theft as the annual cost exceeds the value of said ride. It is also our only means of motorized transportation.

This, however, isn't a bad point. I think you'll have a tough time convincing many people that it's worth killing over, but it's definitely within the realm of reason.

Deadly force to prevent simple theft? Unlawful, except in Texas at night under limited circumstances.

I think the Joe Horn case suggests it's not quite as cut and dry as that.

csmsss
May 3, 2009, 03:54 PM
Do I need to go ahead and point out the obviously false comparison being made here?

Because I can.

But really, I shouldn't have to.It's not a false comparison, because the initial "point" being made was utterly without validity. Whether a possession is insured or not is irrelevant when considering whether it is worth defending. And I shouldn't need to make THAT point.

OuTcAsT
May 3, 2009, 04:07 PM
I think you'll have a tough time convincing many people that it's worth killing over, but it's definitely within the realm of reason.


I think some folks are losing sight of one very important aspect of this case, The property owner did not shoot to protect his property, he shot because he fully believed that;

A. Someone was trying to run him over with his own vehicle, and,

B. that the passenger appeared to have a weapon.

The whole argument about shooting to protect property is moot as this was a case of shooting to protect his own life.

Is that right? Then I'm sure you won't mind if I come to your store and relieve you of all your firearms while you refrain from defending them?

Good point, to some degree. Wild, let's theorize that I break into your shop, steal some guns (you now know I am armed) and attempt to flee in your car, in the process I try and run you over. Can you truthfully and without reservation tell me that; If you are armed you will not shoot under any circumstances ? If not, please explain exactly what circumstances would constitute grounds for you to protect yourself?

MrNiceGuy
May 3, 2009, 04:10 PM
The additude that one should use or initiate the use of deadly physical force over posessions is a prefect example of whats wrong with mankind

I disagree. I believe that the use of deadly force is what is keeping mankind from sliding into oblivion.

There needs to be this kind of consequences to curb crime. What would have happened if the farmer had been unarmed and caught him in the act? Would the thief retaliate and beat, shoot, or stab the farmer? Those are very real outcomes in the situation that the thief caused. Should the thief be allowed to blatantly risk the lives of anyone they choose without having to worry about risking their own lives?

I believe outcomes like this serve to keep the only real deterrent a viable one.

hogdogs
May 3, 2009, 04:26 PM
Thieves, thugs and fakers are what is wrong with mankind... along with laws preventing folks from defending their constitutional right to protect life liberty and happiness... Happiness is often found in the material items procured thru hard work!
As a person who WILL NOT STEAL I am rabidly stark raving mad every time I put a key into a lock of any kind!:mad:
While vigilante justice is often not 100% correct, neither is government enforcement. Nothin' like stringing up thieves in the old times to send a message that wayward ways are met with finite resistance...
Brent

stilettosixshooter
May 3, 2009, 04:26 PM
The additude that one should use or initiate the use of deadly physical force over posessions is a prefect example of whats wrong with mankind.

Ask an East Texas farmer 20 miles away from the nearest LE outpost whether he agrees with this statement. Is he supposed to sit idly by if someone is on his property making off with his property and/or the equipment that he uses to support his family?

And ask an East Texas criminal whether he would be willing to traipse on to a farmer's land to try and make off with the goods in the first place. I think most of us are aware that there would be a high probability that such an effort would be met with the bad end of a shotgun.

Whether or not you would choose this course of action is not my point - but I personally understand the mentality and do not see it as an indication that mankind is going downhill.

JuanCarlos
May 3, 2009, 05:02 PM
It's not a false comparison, because the initial "point" being made was utterly without validity. Whether a possession is insured or not is irrelevant when considering whether it is worth defending. And I shouldn't need to make THAT point.

Okay, so I guess I do need to point out why it's a false analogy. A life cannot be replaced. A vehicle can. If my wife collects the $500K or so in life insurance I have, she can't use that $500K (plus a small deductible) to buy a replacement for me.

Well, not one as sexy as I am, anyway.

In general, property is replaceable. People are not. There may be some exceptions, such as heirlooms, but even then most people (as well as the law) will place human life above property.

So your comparison of life insurance to insurance against property was absolutely without merit. It was an attempt to equate the loss of insured property to the loss of insured life to bolster your point, when in fact the two are absolutely not analogous.


Also, most reasonable people will absolutely consider whether or not something is insured (and how much the deductible might be) when determining whether it's worth defending or not. Whether I'm going to be out a $250 deductible or the full $10,000 cost of my vehicle will almost certainly be a factor when I decide whether or not it is worth putting myself in danger (legal, physical, or mortal) to defend it.


I think some folks are losing sight of one very important aspect of this case, The property owner did not shoot to protect his property, he shot because he fully believed that;

A. Someone was trying to run him over with his own vehicle, and,

B. that the passenger appeared to have a weapon.

The whole argument about shooting to protect property is moot as this was a case of shooting to protect his own life.

If he was actually acting out of true self-preservation, he'd not have placed himself in front of (or remained in front of) the vehicle in the first place.

He placed his own life in danger (or at the very least additional danger) in an attempt to save the property, then used that danger as a legal defense for the use of deadly force.

EDIT: I will note, however, that it doesn't sound as if this distinction is relevant as far as the law is concerned. Personally I don't know if I fully support such a law; there's a difference between not having a duty to retreat and being allowed to actively escalate the situation unnecessarily. Still, I'm don't necessarily oppose it either...given what's written below.


Thieves, thugs and fakers are what is wrong with mankind... along with laws preventing folks from defending their constitutional right to protect life liberty and happiness... Happiness is often found in the material items procured thru hard work!

People do often like to ignore than money and material goods in many ways represent life, or at least a portion thereof. I know nothing I have has been given to me, all of it has been earned with money that I had to sacrifice my time (and in some cases safety) for. An uninsured (against theft) car, for instance, may well represent months of a person's life spent earning it.

Wildalaska
May 3, 2009, 05:47 PM
I didn't say that you were an opportunist or a hypocrite, I said your actions, as opposed to your words, make it SEEM as if you are.

Nice try.

Since I am in a fenzy of last minute packing here, and getting evil looks from SWMBO, let me note that your argument is essentially the same as a person who seeks to restrict firearms on an ifcome. Is the car salesman a hypocrite or an opportunist because he sells cars to potential drunk drivers?

You guys miss the point. It's a "good shoot" in that based on the facts as we know it, the guys life was threatened.

But consider the escalation factor. Thats the shiver up my fat covered spine
WildthinkaboutitAlaska TM

OuTcAsT
May 3, 2009, 05:56 PM
let me note that your argument is essentially the same as a person who seeks to restrict firearms on an ifcome. Is the car salesman a hypocrite or an opportunist because he sells cars to potential drunk drivers?


Gee, that sounds like a familiar argument...:rolleyes:

But the car salesman did not put his moral values on a public forum, juxtapose them against his profession, nor was he naive enough to believe that someone might not call him on his sanctimony.

Double Naught Spy
May 3, 2009, 06:01 PM
But consider the escalation factor. Thats the shiver up my fat covered spine

Right! Had the driver not threatened the SUV's owner by driving towards him, the owner would not have had to shoot into the SUV to save his life.

Wildalaska
May 3, 2009, 06:07 PM
But the car salesman did not put his moral values on a public forum, juxtapose them against his profession, nor was he naive enough to believe that someone might not call him on his sanctimony.

Im in the profession of selling tools to responsible gun owners for hunting, sport, target shooting and legitmate self defense. My moral value is life is precious and shouldnt be taken lightly and that ownership of a tool that can cause death is an awesome responsibility. If that is sanctimonious in folks view, then they should be looking at their own moral values.

Right! Had the driver not threatened the SUV's owner by driving towards him, the owner would not have had to shoot into the SUV to save his life.

I guess you miss the point too

WildsomeoneelsewontAlaska TM

OuTcAsT
May 3, 2009, 06:57 PM
m in the profession of selling tools to responsible gun owners for hunting, sport, target shooting and legitmate self defense. My moral value is life is precious and shouldnt be taken lightly and that ownership of a tool that can cause death is an awesome responsibility.

On this point I have no disagreement with you, and that is the position that I am confident any responsible gunowner, or purveyor should have.

The only difference we have is that you feel that because a man, working on his farm, was confronted with the theft of his property, and during that theft was required by the circumstances to shoot a criminal to protect his own life, that he is somehow a "Rambo" Yet in the same breath you call it a good shoot? Then proceed to postulate about the Karmic consequences?

But consider the escalation factor. Thats the shiver up my fat covered spine

Fine, Having not been present I can only speculate, but if someone basically try's to run me down with my own vehicle, and I perceive that the passenger may be armed as well, I cannot justify just standing there with a cell phone in my hand dialing the magic number while waiting to see if I will be plowed down, shot, or both.

I believe I would probably have done the same as the farmer, I may spend some time in Sheoul as an insect, but I'm gonna delay the transition as long as I can.

Right! Had the driver not threatened the SUV's owner by driving towards him, the owner would not have had to shoot into the SUV to save his life.
I guess you miss the point too

Nope, pretty sure he's spot-on

JuanCarlos
May 3, 2009, 07:10 PM
Fine, Having not been present I can only speculate, but if someone basically try's to run me down with my own vehicle, and I perceive that the passenger may be armed as well, I cannot justify just standing there with a cell phone in my hand dialing the magic number while waiting to see if I will be plowed down, shot, or both.

If your true intent is self preservation, and you honestly believe them to be armed, it seems like finding cover is your best option. Even if you intend to return fire. Standing in front of the vehicle? Not so much.

Now, I'll admit I wasn't there. I do have this handy news story, though, which seems to cite his own affidavit as to at least some details of what went down.

According to the affidavit, Jones heard his Toyota Land Cruiser, parked in the barn at his orange grove, start up before daylight Tuesday. Jones told police he grabbed his gun, a 9mm that he keeps with him while working at the grove. He said he could see two people in the SUV as it backed out of the barn, according to the affidavit. He said he saw the passenger's arm reach outside the vehicle, and believed that person might be holding a gun.

The Land Cruiser stopped directly in front of him, Jones said in the affidavit. He said he raised his gun and pointed it at the occupants, shouting "Stop," but the vehicle appeared to be moving directly toward him.

Those two paragraphs suggest his primary intent was preventing the theft, not self-defense. In attempting to prevent the theft, he placed himself in a situation where self-defense was required.

It's not like he was just standing around smoking a pipe in the middle of the road/trail/driveway/whereverthishappened, only to suddenly find himself being run down by his own Land Cruiser with no other option. He claims he thought they might have a weapon, yet his first instinct was to place himself in front of the vehicle, and stand out in the open even giving them the opportunity to either shoot him, run him down, or both.

If his intent was self-defense, it sounds to me (again, given details from his own affidavit) like he was incredibly stupid and is alive only because he was incredibly lucky. Or because the perpetrators never intended to kill him in the first place. Either way.

If his intent was to prevent the theft of his vehicle, by deadly force if necessary, then he seems to have chosen somewhat wisely. Though I'd still call him foolish because it sounds like he put himself in more danger than necessary to do so. Basically assuming these thieves were ever willing to kill him (or seriously injure him), he is lucky they didn't manage it.

Though the skeptic in me might suggest that he did so not only because he never truly believed they intended to use deadly force against him, but because he also knew that placing himself in a situation where they could would give him the justification to shoot.

The only difference we have is that you feel that because a man, working on his farm, was confronted with the theft of his property, and during that theft was required by the circumstances to shoot a criminal to protect his own life, that he is somehow a "Rambo" Yet in the same breath you call it a good shoot? Then proceed to postulate about the Karmic consequences?

I believe he referred to it as a "good shoot" in a legal sense. Which it seems to have been.

And he was required by circumstances he played a significant role in creating to shoot a criminal to protect his own life. Again, see the above. Had his primary intent been the preservation of his own life, rather than his property, he'd never have found himself in front of the SUV to begin with.

hogdogs
May 3, 2009, 07:18 PM
But there is no florida law stating I cannot confront and interdict a car thief of my vehicle... Just can't shoot them for it. Also no law says i cannot take my gun with me. I can "stand my ground" in front of the vehicle or seek cover... my option, my discretion. If I choose the former option, I can shoot to preserve my health. This seems to be what is stated in the report. some one else may choose the latter option but either is legally acceptable here.
Brent

Wildalaska
May 3, 2009, 07:20 PM
See...one guy gets it.:D

WildandkarmaisabeeatchAlaska tm

MrNiceGuy
May 3, 2009, 07:22 PM
WildandkarmaisabeeatchAlaska

Just ask the girl in the passenger seat :eek:

divemedic
May 3, 2009, 07:24 PM
OK, so as a store owner, I confront a man who I believe to be shoplifting. I attempt to escort him to security to await the law. When I do so, the miscreant pulls out a knife. I draw a firearm and shoot him dead.

Did I just use deadly force to protect property? Should I have backed off and let him go? If so, at what point? When I saw him steal? When he pulled the knife? If all store owners let shoplifters go, how long until all stores are out of business?

So, a farmer sees a miscreant stealing his truck. He attempts to confront the thief. The thief attempts to run him down, so the farmer pulls a gun and shoots the thief.

Did the farmer just use deadly force to protect property? Should the farmer have backed off and let him go? If so, at what point? When the farmer saw him steal the truck? When he tried to run the farmer over? If all farmers let thieves go, how long until all farms are out of business?

OuTcAsT
May 3, 2009, 07:31 PM
Though the skeptic in me might suggest that he did so not only because he never truly believed they intended to use deadly force against him, but because he also knew that placing himself in a situation where they could would give him the justification to shoot.


By that line of reasoning I wonder why the handy news article also includes this tidbit;

The vehicle backed up at high speed, crashed through a fence and ended up in a ditch. Jones told police a man jumped out of the SUV and ran away.


Seems that if he were so eager to put himself in the position to be able to justify shooting that "rambo" would have also finished off the fleeing driver...No witnesses :rolleyes:

But there is no florida law stating I cannot confront and interdict a car thief of my vehicle... Just can't shoot them for it. Also no law says i cannot take my gun with me. I can "stand my ground" in front of the vehicle or seek cover... my option, my discretion. If I choose the former option, I can shoot to preserve my health. This seems to be what is stated in the report. some one else may choose the latter option but either is legally acceptable here.

Exactly, thankfully the law supports common sense in this case. Guess the Flordia legislature just does not get it. ;)

Wildalaska
May 3, 2009, 07:32 PM
If all farmers let thieves go, how long until all farms are out of business?

Using your implied point, why not bring back the Bloody Code?

WildandmaygawdhavemercyonoursoulsAlaska TM

Double Naught Spy
May 3, 2009, 07:38 PM
No divemedic, you don't get it. Because you tried to protect keep the property in the rightful hands as is legal by law, you give up the right to protect yourself. You are even more wrong for using a weapon to protect yourself against your armed aggressor.

According to some, you just don't have the right to keep your own property safe and if you try to keep it safe, then you don't get to keep yourself safe.

JuanCarlos
May 3, 2009, 07:39 PM
OK, so as a store owner, I confront a man who I believe to be shoplifting. I attempt to escort him to security to await the law. When I do so, the miscreant pulls out a knife. I draw a firearm and shoot him dead.

Did I just use deadly force to protect property? Should I have backed off and let him go? If so, at what point? When I saw him steal? When he pulled the knife? If all store owners let shoplifters go, how long until all stores are out of business?

No, at this point you used non-deadly force (stopping him to escort him, and that may not even have been force at all) to protect property. Then, when he drew a weapon, you used deadly force to defend your life.

In the case of the farmer, the weapon was already clearly visible, and in fact it was the item being stolen (the truck), and the farmer placed himself in a position such that the deadly confrontation was imminent. If you saw a kid running with a knife, you'd be somewhat silly to intentionally put yourself in his path to force the confrontation.

I'm comfortable with the outcome, legally, only because I don't trust any legislature to write a law allowing people to "stand their ground" when necessary but forbidding one to actively place themselves on "ground" that must be "stood" intentionally. In the end, I'll take this tragedy (and I'll take the somewhat controversial position that it is a tragedy) over the risk that more people will be prosecuted for legitimate self-defense.

EDIT: Actually, that last was worded poorly. At the time of the shoot, it was quite certainly legitimate self defense. I can't think of a better way to put it, though. *shrug*


As for your other question, nearly all stores have a firm policy of not physically stopping shoplifters, and they certainly don't want employees stopping armed shoplifters. Even the couple "mom n' pop" joints I worked at had a firm "just let them go" policy, and many major chains will straight-up fire you for crap like that. Largely because their exposure to liability (for your injury, or for the injury of somebody who turns out to not be shoplifting, or whatever) outweighs any property you might recover. Obviously actual owners and their families may take greater liberties.

And despite the fact that such policies are commonplace, stores continue to operate from coast to coast. So how long? The only answer I can give you is "not yet."

Seems that if he were so eager to put himself in the position to be able to justify shooting that "rambo" would have also finished off the fleeing driver...No witnesses

Good point. My inner skeptic ain't always right, and I know this. ;)

Wildalaska
May 3, 2009, 07:42 PM
Exactly, thankfully the law supports common sense in this case. Guess the Flordia legislature just does not get it.

There is a thin line between benign and malignant aggresstion that sometimes the law cannot account for. The psychological permutations are endless.

I would postulate that one of the dividing lines between benign and malignant aggresssion is the ability to just let things slide...or to put it another way....dont put yourself in a situation where you have to shoot.

I love my truck. I'm not shooting someone over it.

WildbutheyimawimpAlaska TM

Webleymkv
May 3, 2009, 07:48 PM
I don't see how we got to cockroach reincarnation from the details given by the news story. Sounds to me like farmer sees his truck being stolen and goes to the barn to investigate. Farmer doesn't know who may be in the barn, so he takes his gun (seems prudent to me). When the farmer confronts the thieves, they threaten his life and force him to shoot. Wildalaska, you seem to assume that the farmer went to the barn with the intention of using deadly force against the would-be thieves, and evidence of that simply isn't there.

OuTcAsT
May 3, 2009, 07:53 PM
There is a thin line between benign and malignant aggresstion that sometimes the law cannot account for. The psychological permutations are endless.

I would postulate that one of the dividing lines between benign and malignant aggresssion is the ability to just let things slide...or to put it another way....dont put yourself in a situation where you have to shoot.

I love my truck. I'm not shooting someone over it.

Agreed, (for the most part) However, it greatly depends on where that "dividing line" is drawn, and who's holdin' the pencil. On the street, in broad daylight is one thing, In my home (as it were) is quite another.:cool:

Wildalaska
May 3, 2009, 07:53 PM
Sounds to me like farmer sees his truck being stolen and goes to the barn to investigate. Farmer doesn't know who may be in the barn, so he takes his gun (seems prudent to me)

And that escalated the situation. Hence the carapace in the next life.

WildandthecarthiefcomesbackasScarabaeinaeAlaska TM

Doggieman
May 3, 2009, 07:57 PM
I figure once somebody's on my property stealing my stuff, he or she has forfeited his right to live. Of course I'm in the minority on that opinion, and wouldn't ACT on it because it's illegal here in CA, but that's how I feel.

Then again I'm not one of those folks who thinks life is all that "precious" anyhow. Especially the lives of those who want to hurt me.

If it were legal I'd gladly punch the ticket of anyone who was committing crime against me or my family.

Interestingly, I'm against the death penalty, not because life is "precious" but because I want to limit the power of the government.

Summary:

Perp on my property = potential threat = kill him
Perp locked away in jail = no potential threat = don't kill him

hogdogs
May 3, 2009, 07:57 PM
Ken, Ain't you got a trip to pack for? Yer not takin' a laptop are you?:rolleyes::D
I love my truck too and would never let my baby go with out trying to get the thief to stop, get out and choose Ken's truck... if that don't work, I will have to shoot thru my windshield to protect my life... Just make me an oriental cockroach so I can live outdoors in the next life... Again, in the south thank you...
Brent

OuTcAsT
May 3, 2009, 07:59 PM
And that escalated the situation. Hence the carapace in the next life.

WildandthecarthiefcomesbackasScarabaeinaeAlaska

Careful there Bro, That may just be your opinion he's pushin' around thru eternity :p

Al Norris
May 3, 2009, 08:37 PM
Anyone bother to read Dean V. U.S? The perpetrator of a crime is responsible for all consequences of that crime, accidental or unintended... Including whatever happens if I try to stop the crime.
Those two paragraphs suggest his primary intent was preventing the theft, not self-defense. In attempting to prevent the theft, he placed himself in a situation where self-defense was required.
Excuse me, but when did we make the societal turn that says it is only the duty and responsibility of our police officers to prevent crime?

Rhetorical Question: If by doing something that might place you in harm, would you allow a drowning man to drown??

Whether you are helping to save a life, or helping to prevent a crime, it's what a responsible person does.

Oh, that argument that a life that's lost can't be replaced? What about that part of my life that went into working to get those funds to buy that vehicle? Sure, I can work some more... But who is going to replace those years of my life that were stolen? An insurance policy, for all that it will pay, will not replace those lost years.
And that escalated the situation. Hence the carapace in the next life.
Careful, Ken. That kind of logic may be used to imprison anyone who carries for any reason.

Wildalaska
May 3, 2009, 08:55 PM
The perpetrator of a crime is responsible for all consequences of that crime, accidental or unintended... Including whatever happens if I try to stop the crime.

Thats CLEARLY the law...but we arent contending that the law is always moral are we....and see my post about psychological permutations, infra

Oh, that argument that a life that's lost can't be replaced? What about that part of my life that went into working to get those funds to buy that vehicle? Sure, I can work some more... But who is going to replace those years of my life that were stolen? An insurance policy, for all that it will pay, will not replace those lost years.

Do we put you in the camp of those who therefore think its OK to kill to protect property?

Careful, Ken. That kind of logic may be used to imprison anyone who carries for any reason.

Karma pays no attention to the law :D

WildthissceanariowouldmakeagreatehticorslawschoolquestionAlaska TM

Al Norris
May 3, 2009, 09:16 PM
Never said my viewpoint was popular or non-controversial. :p

OuTcAsT
May 3, 2009, 09:19 PM
Thats CLEARLY the law...but we arent contending that the law is always moral are we....



"If they can get you asking the wrong questions"...

Mike Irwin
May 4, 2009, 12:09 AM
"If my wife collects the $500K or so in life insurance I have, she can't use that $500K (plus a small deductible) to buy a replacement for me."

Sure she can. She can get married again.

Will she get an exact replica of you? No, but then again the person who loses a car to theft likely won't get the exact same car, either.



"Im in the profession of selling tools to responsible gun owners for hunting, sport, target shooting and legitmate self defense."

So, do you deliver a means and morals test of your own devising to all of your customers?

How do you determine that the man standing in front of you is, by your own moral compass, responsible?

How do you justify taking his money and handing him a gun that he may use to violate your tenets of morality?

I'm still not seeing any sort of answer to that, Ken. I am, however, seeing evasion, obfuscation, and rationalization.


"Nice try."

Actually, nice truth, Ken. You may wish to try reading the definition of ad hominem that Outcast provided. It should be very enlightening in the same manner that I hope your responses have been very enlightening to people here.

Wildalaska
May 4, 2009, 12:29 AM
I'm still not seeing any sort of answer to that, Ken. I am, however, seeing evasion, obfuscation, and rationalization.

Naw, you are just seeing what you want to see. I see no conflict between my life affirming moral values and the sale of firearms, nor can you provide us with any evidence of such a conflict. But regardless, see below.

And I see no answer to my inquiry to you, infra...which is equal evasion, obfuscation and rationalization. But no need to debate that further.

Actually, nice truth, Ken. You may wish to try reading the definition of ad hominem that Outcast provided. It should be very enlightening in the same manner that I hope your responses have been very enlightening to people here.

Actually, Mike, I could care less who is "enlightened" by my posts. My position has and always has been consistent with respect to the use of firearms, folks either will like it or not. And since you are now "staff" and have evidently free reign to indulge in personal attacks, you can hereby declare yourself the winner of this debate, as this particular "e-tard" is not in the mood for your vitriol as planes scare me, especially 12 hours riding in one.

You win. I'm a hypocrite:rolleyes:

WildithinkillsellcarsAlaska TM

PS:
So, do you deliver a means and morals test of your own devising to all of your customers?

Actually, I do the best I can. I am fortunate that the folks we deal with a pretty much the cream of the crop, so my self critisism is virtually nil

Doggieman
May 4, 2009, 01:51 AM
I think I speak for more than myself when I say I don't particularly care about your "life affirming" morality, Wildalaska. Though it might be a point of pride for you, as you repeatedly point out, in the context of this discussion it's really quite meaningless.

Dust Monkey
May 4, 2009, 02:41 AM
Just a freaking car. 19 shot manhood. Sorry WA. You lost me there. I own a 40K Dodge power wagon. I worked my behind off to be able to get it. It's not "just a truck". It's my truck. My property sitting in my yard. And if anyone tried to steal it, yes I would shoot them. End of story.

This " it's just a vehicle", "it's just a whatever" is BS. The fault belongs to the idiots who tried to steal it. There is a simple way to stop things like this from happening. Don't steal.

This man did what many of us would have done under similar circumstances. I don't see the need to call this man a rambo or insinuate he has to have a firearm to be his manhood. That's Brady Bunch logic. Geez.

Wildalaska
May 4, 2009, 02:43 AM
I think I speak for more than myself when I say I don't particularly care about your "life affirming" morality, Wildalaska.

Thats understandable, considering your post that folks who steal forfeit their right to live.

On a related note, did you know that children as young as 12 could get the Supreme Penalty for stealing State property in Stalinist Russia

WildbutheypropertyissacredAlaska TM

Wildalaska
May 4, 2009, 02:46 AM
You lost me there.

Read JuanCarlos posts then, he is far more articulate that moi

And if anyone tried to steal it, yes I would shoot them.

Unless you live in some of the benighted areas that permit life to be taken over property without more, that would be murder.

You would murder someone over a (pardon "your") truck:cool:

WildkudosforhonestyAlaska TM

Doggieman
May 4, 2009, 02:50 AM
I've concluded that WA is a self-absorbed troll and he now goes on my ignore list.

Every thread he posts in becomes all about him.

WA, get out more buddy! :rolleyes:

alloy
May 4, 2009, 06:12 AM
the right to use lethal force if he reasonably believes his life is in danger.

The authorities seem to think he was following the law. The horse rustlers...not so much.

Double Naught Spy
May 4, 2009, 06:36 AM
WA, I think you have missed a huge point. It stopped being just a freaking car when it started to be used as a freaking weapon.

For some reason, I cannot imagine that you would just sit there and watch if somebody come in your gun shop and started grabbing guns off the wall or out of the cases. After all, the guns are insured, right? So you and Jim would sit there on your butts and watch the bad guys grab all the goodies and maybe even hold the door open for them as they left?

Then again, maybe y'all do stuff different up north, waayyyy up north.

Jofaba
May 4, 2009, 07:17 AM
I didn't get through all the posts so please forgive me if I missed someone else making this same point; but whenever stories like this pop up, it seems that some people completely ignore that there's a lot more than the proposed facts that come into play when determining whether a crime was committed or not. It's why we have courts. When there is enough question, we pick somewhat random ordinary citizens from the populace to decide whether or not an action, or series of actions, was just. Of course we're all allowed to have our opinions, this post of mine is a equally just a matter of opinion, but it seems like some of us may need to look past a single article before making a judgment on anyone involved.

Some of the arguments I've read berry picked from the story without even attempting to humanize it. This wasn't a scene from some action flick, this really happened. It involved people who woke up that morning, dusted off their dreams, perhaps had breakfast, thought about the days/years before and the day ahead of them, intentions, etc. And whether some of those intentions were nefarious, none of those involved were probably quite prepared for that exact instant that would decide all of their fate. I doubt that girl woke up saying "I'm planning on dying today", or the man who fired the bullet woke up thinking "I hope that I get the chance to kill a young woman today".

You can imagine their actions scripted to match your opinion, but we don't know from this article whether the thieves were just some naive kids looking for a thrill and the owner was a trigger happy jackass, or if the thieves were extremely dangerous and deranged and hell bent on destroying as much property and life as possible. Did the passenger who supposedly looked like they had a weapon put her hand out the window threateningly, or to show that she had no weapons?

The questions that rise from this article are tremendous, in that if we were the jury and this was the stated case, I hope that none of you would be able to draw an opinion for either side.

The entire case, in my opinion, boils down to this part;

The Land Cruiser stopped directly in front of him, Jones said in the affidavit. He said he raised his gun and pointed it at the occupants, shouting "Stop," but the vehicle appeared to be moving directly toward him.

This is the instant that this moved from grand theft to manslaughter. And who was initiating the manslaughter is what is in question here. It says the vehicle stopped. Did the driver decide at that instant to murder the man with the vehicle? Did he stop out of fear ready to give up? Did the man shoot before or after the vehicle began moving again, and what direction was it moving? He didn't shoot the driver, so maybe none of that matters as we are lead to believe that the passenger appeared to have a weapon. What made him believe she had a weapon? Did she have a weapon? Is it reasonable to think that a "Rambo" senario would lead the shooter to aim at the passenger instead of the driver? Does that bolster his story?

The possible range of scenarios span from comic book simple to mystery novel complicated. I think that the most telling part of this story so far is that the police questioned the man who fired the fatal shots, and after hearing his story, questioning his recollection of the events, probing his wording, observing his attitude and demeanor, decided, at least initially, that he had done the right thing, without even the slightest amount of doubt to temporarily detain him while they worked out some questionable aspects of his account of the events.

divemedic
May 4, 2009, 07:20 AM
Actually, all you have to do to get free stuff is go to WA's store and home. He has already stated that he will offer no resistance when you steal his property.

Juan:

and the farmer placed himself in a position such that the deadly confrontation was imminent. If you saw a kid running with a knife, you'd be somewhat silly to intentionally put yourself in his path to force the confrontation.


No lethal force for property crimes: so Arson, Piracy, and Treason are out.

What about rape, WA? You don't mean to tell me that you would shoot to prevent someone from raping a woman? After all, she probably gives it away for free, anyway. She lost nothing but a few minutes of her time, after all. Hardly worth killing over. Dressing like that, she put herself in the position where the rape was unavoidable.

Armed robbery? After all, if you just give them what they want, they probably won't hurt you. You had no business in that neighborhood, especially carrying cash. You put yourself in the position you are in and FORCED him to rob you.

OuTcAsT
May 4, 2009, 09:02 AM
First you say this;

"Im in the profession of selling tools to responsible gun owners for hunting, sport, target shooting and legitmate|sic| self defense."

Then this;

I see no conflict between my life affirming moral values and the sale of firearms,

So please clarify the term "legitmate|sic| self defense."

I think that will answer a lot of questions. Just exactly what makes shooting "legitimate" to you, what is the line that must be crossed? C'mon Man, you place your sanctimony again on public display then refuse to illustrate your un-popular opinion? Or to even qualify your rationale?

My position has and always has been consistent with respect to the use of firearms,

Reeeeaaaalyyy? Here's your chance, please spell out your consistent position, answer Mike's question in detail, answer my own question in detail, convince me !

Jofaba gets it ;


This is the instant that this moved from grand theft to manslaughter. And who was initiating the manslaughter is what is in question here.

Yup, that's the question.


I think that the most telling part of this story so far is that the police questioned the man who fired the fatal shots, and after hearing his story, questioning his recollection of the events, probing his wording, observing his attitude and demeanor, decided, at least initially, that he had done the right thing, without even the slightest amount of doubt to temporarily detain him while they worked out some questionable aspects of his account of the events.

Bingo !

PS;

And since you are now "staff" and have evidently free reign to indulge in personal attacks

No personal attack here, Just a claim of one by someone who starts an argument on a moral (read: personal) opinion on shaky ground, then cries "foul" when someone calls him on it. Oh, and Ken. We are not gonna argue the legality of morals are we ?

Webleymkv
May 4, 2009, 09:16 AM
Quote:
Sounds to me like farmer sees his truck being stolen and goes to the barn to investigate. Farmer doesn't know who may be in the barn, so he takes his gun (seems prudent to me)

And that escalated the situation. Hence the carapace in the next life.


So someone who investigates the in-progress theft of their truck is "escalating" the situation and therefore stands on shaky moral ground? Come now WA, that's a bit of a stretch.

OuTcAsT
May 4, 2009, 09:30 AM
Quote:
And since you are now "staff" and have evidently free reign to indulge in personal attacks

You know what Ken, You have illustrated this entire thread, accidentally, by your own postings. You have put yourself in the shoes of the thief, or the young lady accomplice by trying to interject "morality" and intertwine it with a purely legal topic on ground where that is usually frowned upon. You have put others in a position to question you on those "principals" (like the farmer) and then screech when shots are fired at your argument. Question is: were we justified in our dissection of your argument?

imthegrumpyone
May 4, 2009, 09:51 AM
My .02 cents and I don't much care who likes it or not, "Accountability for your actions' In some cases will get you killed. We have become a nation of "do nothings" We have quit holding people accountable for there actions no mater what they have done, Murder, Rape, Theft, and so on and so on. My taxes are paying for the incarceration of untold numbers of garbage, because of a society that sits on there thumbs and watches there country and there civil rights slowly disappear, where criminals and foreign enemies have more constitutional rights than an "American". Yes a tragedy, but if your waiting for tears for a scum bag and accomplice that would rather take "yours" instead of "working" for there's don't hold your breath. I would like to see in my life time our country stand together with a back bone, fix and preserve this "Nation Under God" or so help us forever.:mad:

rzach
May 4, 2009, 10:12 AM
under fl law deadly force is justified if you are trying to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. The use of deadly force must be absolutely necessary to prevent the crime.

divemedic
May 4, 2009, 10:57 AM
"Im in the profession of selling tools to responsible gun owners for hunting, sport, target shooting and legitmate self defense."

Does legitimate self defense mean cowering in your bedroom, and allowing criminals to run through your home and business, stealing whatever they please?

Al Norris
May 4, 2009, 01:50 PM
Let's all get back on track here. The morality issue is moot.

The issue before us is one of legality.

JuanCarlos
May 4, 2009, 02:08 PM
Oh, that argument that a life that's lost can't be replaced? What about that part of my life that went into working to get those funds to buy that vehicle? Sure, I can work some more... But who is going to replace those years of my life that were stolen? An insurance policy, for all that it will pay, will not replace those lost years.

Well, I believe addressed that actual point in one of my posts, and it's the reason I'm not entirely opposed to the use of deadly force to protect property (though I'd argue that the value of the property and whether it's your own property or that of another may factor in).

Also, if we're talking about simple property then assuming it's insured no years were lost. If my $10K car is stolen, I'm probably out at most $1K or so (figuring deductible and increase in premiums...maybe $2K). After paying the deductible I will be able to purchase what is basically an exact functional replacement for the vehicle, and I'll be out a total of $2K...which hardly represents "years" of the average person's life (more like a couple months).

Those months/years also still won't balance out against the entire rest of somebody's life. You're talking about a year (at least the working portion) at most versus...well, who knows, but statistically something on the order of decades. At the same time, I don't think it's necessarily unreasonable to place even one year of your own life above decades of another's, assuming the other person is attempting to unlawfully take that year of your life.

Which is to say that our positions are probably not all that far apart, I just find the attempts to characterize this as "self defense" (in the traditional sense of the term, not the "property=life" sense above) to be more than a little disingenuous.

No lethal force for property crimes: so Arson, Piracy, and Treason are out.

What about rape, WA? You don't mean to tell me that you would shoot to prevent someone from raping a woman? After all, she probably gives it away for free, anyway. She lost nothing but a few minutes of her time, after all. Hardly worth killing over. Dressing like that, she put herself in the position where the rape was unavoidable.

Arson, piracy, and treason are hardly simple property crimes. Arson generally presents a legitimate danger to the lives of others, piracy certainly carries an implied threat to the lives of the crew, and treason...well, is treason. Other examples of crimes that definitely involve an implied threat against person in addition to property would be armed robbery (which you mention) or carjacking.

And rape is not a property crime either, it's a crime against person (on par with aggravated assault, at the least).

The false analogies in this thread are flying fast and furious, now.

If my wife collects the $500K or so in life insurance I have, she can't use that $500K (plus a small deductible) to buy a replacement for me.

Sure she can. She can get married again.

Will she get an exact replica of you? No, but then again the person who loses a car to theft likely won't get the exact same car, either.

Maybe I'm the odd one here, but I can't think of a single piece of property I own that I would put on par, in terms of "irreplaceable," with a human being.

I have a few that might come close, and certainly stand out above the others. A few relics from high school, or from military service, from deceased family members, maybe a few others. Still, not one of those is even on the same order of magnitude as my wife. I'd generally be heartbroken if I lost them, but if she was killed in the same incident (fire, robbery, whatever) I'd probably never give them a thought.

I've certainly never owned a car that I elevated to that position. Sure, I'd not be able to buy the exact same car with whatever insurance I collected...but I'd certainly be able to buy the functional equivalent. Now, I've seen a few restored classics that might be a different story, where you can tell a lot of the owners time went into them. At the same time, if my wife died in an accident that destroyed such a car I'd probably not give the car much thought...how about you?

The comparison between life insurance and property insurance was absolutely absurd, and I'd like to think that anybody continuing to defend it is arguing for arguing's sake.

poptime
May 4, 2009, 02:11 PM
Well, on the topic. All we know is what the papers tell us which is not a lot, and you cannot always believe it anyway. We can surmise, however, from the local LE's chosen course of action, that there was a reasonable aspect of self defense. My $.02

JuanCarlos
May 4, 2009, 02:13 PM
Let's all get back on track here. The morality issue is moot.

The issue before us is one of legality.

Well the legality seems pretty clear cut. ;)

At the time he fired, his life was obviously threatened. Whether or not he placed his life in danger unnecessarily shouldn't be relevant; any law trying to make the distinction would just be (as I said before) weakening the rights of citizens to self defense. Which wouldn't be worth it even if the morality were clear and more or less universal, which as we can see here is not the case.

Whether she was an accomplice or bystander is also largely irrelevant, since the legal responsibility for that death should (and in Florida apparently does) fall on the guy committing the felony that led to it.


Out of curiosity, though, how does that work for civil liability? Assuming she was a bystander, would he be exposed to civil liability for her death? I know the laws protecting you from criminal liability for self-defense don't always extend to civil.

Hkmp5sd
May 4, 2009, 03:52 PM
Out of curiosity, though, how does that work for civil liability? Assuming she was a bystander, would he be exposed to civil liability for her death? I know the laws protecting you from criminal liability for self-defense don't always extend to civil.

In Florida, if your shooting is ruled justified, you are protected from any civil lawsuits.

OldMarksman
May 4, 2009, 09:11 PM
In Florida, if your shooting is ruled justified, you are protected from any civil lawsuits.

...that might be filed by someone you shot lawfully on purpose.

Michael Anthony
May 5, 2009, 12:50 AM
In many states if you are a "party to the difficulty" you are not protected by Castle Doctrines or similar legislation.

Was he a contributing factor here? Most definitely. So now the argument is whether or not at the point he decided to shoot was he "legal." He was investigating a disturbance on his property, that's legal. He discovered a theft in process and presented a weapon and yelled "Stop." That's kind of like a citizen's arrest I guess, which is legal where I am (I don't know about where he was). So even if we say he was legal up until now, there's the problem of the "threat" that he described.

I have a huge problem with the idea that shooting at a car is ever going to help. If it is barreling towards you, careening around you, or rolling slowly in your general direction, how will shooting it help? Even if you put one through the driver's dome I don't think the car will flip or explode. It will still be doing whatever it was doing before the driver died. Shooting at a car just makes you feel better.

Morally I'm with Wild, I am not going to kill someone over an object. If your state law provides for a citizens arrest, and you are acting in accordance with that and it becomes a self-defense situation you'd be cleared most likely.

Shooting someone just to prevent a theft? In most places totally illegal. This guy just got to tell the only version of the events (It was comin straight for me!). The car thief fled the scene and his accomplice is dead. Now when the thief says, "Run him over? No way, we were trying to get away!" who will believe him? He's a thief and deserves death.

hogdogs
May 5, 2009, 01:35 AM
MA, Presented? I do not know... the land owner said he thought the truck stopped and also saw passenger arm go out side window opening... thinking the hand held a firearm he fired... thus far he is clear. In florida we can carry a firearm in any manner we choose on our land. We can use said firearm to circumvent violent crime any way we choose. A vehicle regained forward motion against an armed land owner and got fired upon for endangering the life of legal occupant of the land, accomplice of GTA was shot and killed when thought to have a gun and primary suspect is charged with the death according to the law... barring any premeditation on land occupant's part or nefarious "conjunction" (don't know right term) he is free and clear of charges...
Brent

OuTcAsT
May 5, 2009, 10:13 AM
I have a huge problem with the idea that shooting at a car is ever going to help. If it is barreling towards you, careening around you, or rolling slowly in your general direction, how will shooting it help? Even if you put one through the driver's dome I don't think the car will flip or explode. It will still be doing whatever it was doing before the driver died. Shooting at a car just makes you feel better.


You might want to read the account of what happened in the original post but, let me help;

He said he could see two people in the SUV as it backed out of the barn, according to the affidavit. He said he saw the passenger's arm reach outside the vehicle, and believed that person might be holding a gun.


He shot at the vehicles' passenger because he perceived a threat in the form of a weapon. The driver escaped unharmed, and ran away, to be caught later. he was not shooting to stop the vehicle but to mitigate the weapon threat. I am pretty certain that if I saw someone pointing a gun at me and I could fire and stop that threat it would make me feel more safe.

This guy just got to tell the only version of the events (It was comin straight for me!). The car thief fled the scene and his accomplice is dead. Now when the thief says, "Run him over? No way, we were trying to get away!" who will believe him?

That's a pretty broad assumption on your part.
As I pointed out in an earlier post, if the farmer wanted the driver dead, why did he concentrate fire on the passenger side ? and why did he not shoot the fleeing driver, no witnesses at all ? :rolleyes:

Think about it.

OldMarksman
May 5, 2009, 12:45 PM
He said he saw the passenger's arm reach outside the vehicle, and believed that person might be holding a gun.

That's what the report says. Would a reasonable person with the same information have done the same thing? That is, given the evidence, did the shooter have reason to believe that he was in imminent danger of death or serous bodily harm, or that his use of deadly force was necessary to prevent a forcible felony (treason, murder, manslaughter, sexual battery, carjacking, home-invasion robbery, robbery, burglary, arson, kidnapping, aggravated assault, aggravated battery, aggravated stalking, aircraft piracy, unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb, or any other felony which involving the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual)? It appears that the charging authority will now have to decide whether it is appropriate to let a jury decide that.

None of us were there. "Might be holding a gun" seems a little uncertain to me.

why did he not shoot the fleeing driver, no witnesses at all?

I'm not sure what prompted that question. Maybe the guy realized the fleeing driver did not constitute a threat; maybe he reasonably understood that a lack of witnesses would not help at all in the presence of incriminating forensic evidence. The former seems more likely to me.

In any event, the law in question seems largely irrelevant to this case, to me. It does not legalize the shooting of someone to prevent theft, as has been suggested, nor did the shooter say that that was his intention. Yes, it prevents the shooter from having to first pursue the avenue of retreat before using deadly force, and while that provision of the law may be important in a lot of cases, I cannot see how anyone could reasonably expect a person on foot, out in the open, to try to escape a person with a firearm. Maybe the law does remove one evidentiary burden, but I cannot see how it would be critical here. Any Florida attorneys care to comment?

OuTcAsT
May 5, 2009, 01:22 PM
Quote:
why did he not shoot the fleeing driver, no witnesses at all?


I'm not sure what prompted that question. Maybe the guy realized the fleeing driver did not constitute a threat; maybe he reasonably understood that a lack of witnesses would not help at all in the presence of incriminating forensic evidence. The former seems more likely to me.


I can tell you what prompted the question, it was the statement in a previous post;


Shooting at a car just makes you feel better.


And;

This guy just got to tell the only version of the events (It was comin straight for me!). The car thief fled the scene and his accomplice is dead. Now when the thief says, "Run him over? No way, we were trying to get away!" who will believe him?

I think that the poster implied that the farmer only shot to "feel good" and that somehow in the milliseconds it took for this shooting to occur, the farmer calculated that if he let the driver escape he would, somehow be free of the charges for shooting the passenger as no one would believe the drivers' story. If I am wrong I am sure the poster will correct me.

OldMarksman
May 5, 2009, 02:08 PM
OuTcAsT, I took Michael Anthony's post a little differently.

He made the statement "shooting at a car just makes you feel better." In the context of his complete statement, I took that to mean that since you cannot reasonably stop a car that is coming at you with gunfire, maybe shooting makes you think or feel that your are accomplishing something.

Mr. Anthony then pointed out with some sarcasm that the credibility of the driver, who is the only surviving perp, is likely suspect because he is a thief, and that any claim he might make that he was not trying to run over the shooter would carry little weight. Reasonable assumption, in my view.

I still do not understand how that leads to your question, "why did he not shoot the fleeing driver, no witnesses at all?". He would have a very tough time justifying that.

We still do not know the facts. We do not know if there was a weapon in the truck. An we really don't know at whom the shooter actually aimed. Perhaps he did shoot at the driver and miss. Only he knows. Only he knows whether after the fact he thought that, had he shot at the driver and missed, he would stand in better stead by saying that he willfully shot to defend himself against the person he hit. Forensic evidence, whether there was a gun, and how consistently the shooter's story remains may determine the outcome.

We can assume that all but a few people who shoot someone are very likely to try to say that they thought they were in grave danger at the time, whether that was true or not, and of those who do not, an unfortunate, naive few may say they fired to prevent the taking of property or to stop a fleeing felon.

We'll see where this case goes.

Hkmp5sd
May 5, 2009, 04:04 PM
In Florida, if your shooting is ruled justified, you are protected from any civil lawsuits.

...that might be filed by someone you shot lawfully on purpose.

The Florida law protects you from all "civil action from the use of such force." It does not limit protection only to civil action from the BG you shot.

776.032 Immunity from criminal prosecution and civil action for justifiable use of force.--

(1) A person who uses force as permitted in s. 776.012, s. 776.013, or s. 776.031 is justified in using such force and is immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force, unless the person against whom force was used is a law enforcement officer, as defined in s. 943.10(14), who was acting in the performance of his or her official duties and the officer identified himself or herself in accordance with any applicable law or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person was a law enforcement officer. As used in this subsection, the term "criminal prosecution" includes arresting, detaining in custody, and charging or prosecuting the defendant.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0776/SEC032.HTM&Title=->2008->Ch0776->Section%20032#0776.032

OuTcAsT
May 5, 2009, 04:16 PM
I still do not understand how that leads to your question, "why did he not shoot the fleeing driver, no witnesses at all?".

It was a rhetorical (kind of) question, My interpretation of his post was that the shooting, in general might have been reckless. The question was merely emphasizing that if that were the case, why did he (the farmer) not "finish the job"

I was not advocating homicide...:cool:

Hkmp5sd
May 5, 2009, 04:33 PM
why did he (the farmer) not "finish the job"


If the farmer is truthful in that he thought they were trying to run over him, then he probably stopped shooting when he no longer thought there was a threat.

If he was shooting because he was PO'd because someone was stealing his vehicle, then there probably would not have been any "witnesses" left.

The fact he let one of the offenders run away tends to lend credence to his story.

OldMarksman
May 5, 2009, 05:04 PM
The Florida law protects you from all "civil action from the use of such force." It does not limit protection only from civil action from the BG you shot.

I wouldn't want to try to interpret any statute by using dictionary definitions in a context that did not encompass other laws, such as tort laws in this case, and case law.

You might want to consult an attorney who knows the case law. The Missouri law, which came later, was modeled after the Florida law. I think you will find that the phrase "immune from criminal prosecution and civil action for the use of such force" refers (1) to immunity for being prosecuted for any crime if the action was justified and (2) immunity from civil action by the person against whom force was used ("for the use of such force"). Consider that the law makes an exception on the basis of the identity of the person "against whom force was used." One does not "use force against" bystanders.

I seriously doubt that if one's bullets happen to strike high value merchandise at the Ferrari dealer or the proprietor that a civil suit would be filed for "the [lawful] use of such force"--rather, the suit would address damages resulting from an accidental shooting. The shooter certainly didn't aim at the car dealer. And I seriously doubt that the dealer would be barred from seeking damages.

To me, any conclusion that the Florida law prevents a third party from suing and being awarded damages in any injury or death case does not pass the reasonableness test. On the other hand, unless there's something in your liability insurance that excludes firearm liability, the accidental shooting should be covered.

The intent of such laws in most places is to prevent a criminal or his estate from filing wrongful death or other suits in cases in which shootings are deemed lawful for purposes of criminal enforcement. Yes, that was too common, and attorneys have told me that before that provision was enacted, you could be fully justified in shooting someone in your house for self defense, but that the survivors of the deceased could end up taking all of your wealth.

The question that I cannot discuss is when the protection "kicks in". Certainly if you are charged, indicted, and acquitted in a criminal trial court for a shooting, you are immune from civil suits. But what if the sheriff sees no reason to bring charges? Is there anything that bars the housebreaker you shot from suing? After all, there has been no authoritative finding that the sooting was justified, and the plaintiff's burden is then limited to a preponderance of the evidence.

Again, it does not seem reasonable to me that the Florida legislators would have intended to prevent a car dealer or anyone else from recovering damages from the stray bullets of anyone, LEO organizations included. States differ, and Florida could be an outlier in that regard, but you will want to find out what the courts have said before relying on that possibility. The only way to do that is to consult an attorney. You cannot Google on civil trial outcomes.

By the way, the criminal liability is another matter entirely. If the car dealer dies because you fired lawfully at an attacker, the attacker, and not the shooter, would be criminally liable (in most jurisdictions; subject to the details; lay opinion).

Hkmp5sd
May 5, 2009, 05:46 PM
Again, it does not seem reasonable to me that the Florida legislators would have intended to prevent a car dealer or anyone else from recovering damages from the stray bullets of anyone

They can try anything. But should they lose.....

(3) The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by the defendant in defense of any civil action brought by a plaintiff if the court finds that the defendant is immune from prosecution as provided in subsection (1).


Most Florida ambulance chasers don't try.

OuTcAsT
May 5, 2009, 06:17 PM
If the farmer is truthful in that he thought they were trying to run over him, then he probably stopped shooting when he no longer thought there was a threat.

If he was shooting because he was PO'd because someone was stealing his vehicle, then there probably would not have been any "witnesses" left.

The fact he let one of the offenders run away tends to lend credence to his story.
__________________

That was my point exactly.


One does not "use force against" bystanders.

Maybe I'm missing something but in the case being discussed there were no "bystanders". Unless you are trying to paint the passenger as such?

OldMarksman
May 5, 2009, 06:29 PM
They can try anything. But should they lose..... The court shall award reasonable attorney's fees, ...

Again, that assumes that "they" (third parties) are subject to that provision of the law, which applies to suits "for the use of such force" and may well apply only to one against whom deadly force is used, and may not--probably does not, if common sense holds--apply at all to a person shot by accident. Doesn't where I live, and our legislators started with the Florida law. Doesn't anywhere else I'm aware of. Good law to have, just don't read too much into it.

But if the bullets are demonstrably and undeniably yours, and if there are damages, why would they (innocent bystanders, not an assailant) ever lose? Why would any "ambulance chaser" have any doubts at all about the outcome? Clear cut case... preponderance ofthe evidence... no unanimous verdict required....

One more time: consult an attorney. Another good thing for all of us to do is check the details of our homeowners and umbrella policies.

OldMarksman
May 5, 2009, 06:32 PM
Maybe I'm missing something but in the case being discussed there were no "bystanders". Unless you are trying to paint the passenger as such?

You're not missing anything. The discussion has to do with the terms of the Florida statute. Nothing I've read about in the case at hand applies.

The Brady Bunch bird said something about bystanders that was nonsensical at best.

Hkmp5sd
May 5, 2009, 06:42 PM
But if the bullets are demonstrably and undeniably yours, and if there are damages, why would they (innocent bystanders, not an assailant) ever lose?

They should not lose. But the blame rests the with BG that started entire incident with his crime. He is the one they should sue. Why should the law protect you with an "unintended concequences" clause which places all blame for all harm on the BG and then leave you liable to civil procecution?



But, as you have stated, consult an attorney.

Michael Anthony
May 8, 2009, 12:09 AM
Old Marksman read me correctly.

Outcast, you are right... if you believe what the shooter says. However, the short version of my opinion is: "He's lying."

I would wager a hefty sum of cash that the shooter is full of it. Unfortunately there is no way to prove it or know exactly what happened. The only parties who witnessed it were interested parties, and their account of the events would be unreliable.

I would say that in the majority "self-defense" cases, the defender may not necessarily have started out the bad guy, but they overstepped their bounds at some point. The only difference now is they enjoy the luxury of a higher level of credibility than the "scum" who they were shooting at.

He never saw a gun, never believed he saw a gun, never believed the truck was going to kill him; he just had an opportunity to shoot at some thieves and probably get away with it.

It's a bold statement unsupported by facts, but thankfully this is America and I can opine all I want.

Outcast, your reasoning is clearly sound and correct if you do happen to accept the shooter's statements at face value. I'm jaded though, so I don't.

csmsss
May 8, 2009, 12:17 AM
He never saw a gun, never believed he saw a gun, never believed the truck was going to kill him; he just had an opportunity to shoot at some thieves and probably get away with it.You say that as though it's a bad thing. Some of us would argue he did the public a great service.

Michael Anthony
May 8, 2009, 09:36 PM
csmsss,

Do you include yourself in the "some of us" category?

Are you saying that "some of us" advocate killing thieves, or more specifically in this case: people who are riding in vehicles with thieves (to include accessories, masterminds, hostages and unwitting passengers)?

In most places that's murder. I doubt "some of us" would view murder as a public service.

A safer bet would be the "It's comin' straight for us!" or "I was in fear for my life." mantras. You would be safer with those kind of statements. Well, safer legally and politically... morally and spiritually will be a case by case thing.

srt 10 jimbo
May 8, 2009, 10:43 PM
If someone breaks into your house at night are you gonna ask him if he's gonna murder the whole family or are you here to just steal my pot roast outta the fridge. Dont matter, once he gets past the door, I'll shoot and ask questions later.:rolleyes:

csmsss
May 9, 2009, 12:44 AM
csmsss,

Do you include yourself in the "some of us" category?

Are you saying that "some of us" advocate killing thieves, or more specifically in this case: people who are riding in vehicles with thieves (to include accessories, masterminds, hostages and unwitting passengers)?

In most places that's murder. I doubt "some of us" would view murder as a public service.

A safer bet would be the "It's comin' straight for us!" or "I was in fear for my life." mantras. You would be safer with those kind of statements. Well, safer legally and politically... morally and spiritually will be a case by case thing.Pontificate all you wish, but it's pretty simple. Anyone participating in a felony is rolling dice with his/her life, and I for one am not going to lose any sleep when he/she loses that bet.

My opinion is that we as a society have far too great a tolerance for criminals and far too great a tolerance for criminal activity. I will never understand people like you who fret over criminals who lose their lives because of the idiotic choices they make.

Oh, and for the record, I have no problems whatsoever with anyone who defends property with deadly force if it is necessary.

OuTcAsT
May 9, 2009, 07:37 AM
Outcast, you are right... if you believe what the shooter says. However, the short version of my opinion is: "He's lying."

I would wager a hefty sum of cash that the shooter is full of it. Unfortunately there is no way to prove it or know exactly what happened. The only parties who witnessed it were interested parties, and their account of the events would be unreliable.

I would say that in the majority "self-defense" cases, the defender may not necessarily have started out the bad guy, but they overstepped their bounds at some point. The only difference now is they enjoy the luxury of a higher level of credibility than the "scum" who they were shooting at.

He never saw a gun, never believed he saw a gun, never believed the truck was going to kill him; he just had an opportunity to shoot at some thieves and probably get away with it.

It's a bold statement unsupported by facts, but thankfully this is America and I can opine all I want.

Outcast, your reasoning is clearly sound and correct if you do happen to accept the shooter's statements at face value. I'm jaded though, so I don't.

I do take the story at face value, as did the sheriff, DA, and almost everyone else who heard the story...Hence the lack of charges, or arrest. Reading your statements I will ask the same question I asked another poster earlier, if a situation like the farmer was in is not sufficient to protect yourself within the law, exactly what line has to be crossed before you deem it necessary? And more importantly, when faced with this scenario, how long will it take you to achieve this "moral high ground" before you react? I fear that few seconds of hesitation might well cost you your life. As a wise man reminded me earlier this week, part of the problem with folks now days is the failure by the last generation or so to pass along the wisdom their parents had passed to them. The instinct and courage necessary for survival being one of those values that sadly is disappearing.

This steady move toward a "kinder and gentler" civilization has emboldened criminals to the point where situations like the farmer encountered, and worse, are commonplace. Back in the days when most people were armed, and had the courage to stand their ground, these things were mostly un-heard of, as most criminals realized that "stupid " might well cost them their lives.

I too am jaded, particularly when I hear someone trying to justify criminal activity with a victim mentality, to wit;people who are riding in vehicles with thieves (to include accessories, masterminds, hostages and unwitting passengers)? I would posit that the passenger in this case knew full well that they were stealing this vehicle, and might be confronted at some point, unwitting passenger indeed? This is a stupid act, and one in which she actively participated, knowing the possible consequences. Victim? Hardly. Personally, I choose to protect myself and family first, and seek absolution later.

I've added a link to another thread on going in general, A homeowner was on his own property, and shot the criminal, Was he justified in shooting? If so, why is his case different than this one? inquiring minds want to know.

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=356591

OldMarksman
May 9, 2009, 10:34 AM
I do take the story at face value

Why would you necessarily take "at face value" the story of any person who has killed another and then makes the only claim that can save him from a murder conviction?

Do you not believe that if one person shoots another he will almost certainly claim "self defense" unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, whether the dispute that led to the shooing arose from a bad debt, an argument over turf, infidelity, or a fight over a member of the opposite sex?

OK, so in this case the deceased was allegedly committing theft. Any idea how many really bad people --crooks-- do claim self defense when they are involved in a killing?

Yeah, one would generally believe the word of the person who was not stealing, but the fact that the man said he believed the deceased "might be holding a gun" bothers me. Sounds to me like an attempt to justify shooting someone because a truck was being taken, which is unlawful and which has been since long, long before farmers first had machines with internal combustion engines.

Yeah, the man claimed self defense. Considering that his alternative would put him in jail, I don't think one would have any reason to necessarily assume he was being entirely truthful.

As Michael Anthony said, the only witnesses are interested parties.

OuTcAsT
May 9, 2009, 12:01 PM
Sounds to me like an attempt to justify shooting someone because a truck was being taken, which is unlawful and which has been since long, long before farmers first had machines with internal combustion engines.

Obviously you have not studied at least some of legal history,
at least as it involves theft of horses (the precursor of the auto and tractor) Thieves were summarily executed if caught and tried, and shot outright by property owners with no fear of prosecution, as it was considered a serious offense.

Why would you necessarily take "at face value" the story of any person who has killed another and then makes the only claim that can save him from a murder conviction?

I feel secure in the fact that modern police investigation, aided by forensic specialists, can accurately determine if a shooting is "bothersome" enough to warrant an arrest or trial. Thus far none seems impending so, that lends credibility to the man's story in my book. The law is on his side, the police believe him, the DA believes him, most rationally thinking individuals who have read the details believe him ( save a few "jaded" folks ) So I am comfortable with these assessments of his credibility.

but the fact that the man said he believed the deceased "might be holding a gun" bothers me.

Do you not think that angle might not have "bothered" the investigating officers? I'll wager that they also took that into account before simply dismissing it. In a split-second situation, if you perceive that someone is pointing a gun at you, how long should the requisite time be before you react ? Until you are "dead certain" or certainly dead?

Honestly, the victimization of criminals by people who claim to have taken their own safety into hand frightens me.

But the criminalization of someone defending himself within the law nauseates me.

Michael Anthony
May 9, 2009, 05:22 PM
Outcast, I agree with you on many points, particularly the more general ones about society. I also believe that non-police (and some police) have gone way too soft. It seems that you know that society views killing over theft as murder, but that this belief is incorrect and detrimental. Do I have your viewpoint correct?

Csmsss on the other hand seems to believe society is too soft, but advocates murder in place of working to change society's stance towards crime. This is a strange stance to take in a public forum :rolleyes:

I agree completely about the victimization of criminals Outcast, particularly when those who are defending themselves do so within the law. The fact remains though that according to most modern law, property does not equal life. I also agree with you fully that the passenger probably knew what was going on. The shooter could probably safely assume she was an accessory as well. If all three of us were mistaken, however, the price paid to find out would be a high one.

I won't fault you for assuming the results of the investigation lend credibility to his story; I just know better ;)

(P.S. "Felony" is a far too broad a standard to use. Last time someone got shot for forging a check I'm sure the shooter got charged :D)

OldMarksman
May 9, 2009, 05:28 PM
Obviously you have not studied at least some of legal history,
at least as it involves theft of horses (the precursor of the auto and tractor) Thieves were summarily executed if caught and tried, and shot outright by property owners with no fear of prosecution, as it was considered a serious offense.

True for a limited period of a few years in some U. S. territories, but as each of them achieved statehood all but one adopted the English Common Law which goes back about a milenium.

Some may have codified exceptions to the common law prohibition of the use of deadly force to protect property in cases other than unlawful forcible entry into occupied premises, but I'm not aware of them, except for very recent limited exceptions in Georgia (OK in forcible felony) and Texas (OK only at night absent other means of protecting property).

I feel secure in the fact that modern police investigation, aided by forensic specialists, can accurately determine if a shooting is "bothersome" enough to warrant an arrest or trial. Thus far none seems impending so, that lends credibility to the man's story in my book. The law is on his side, the police believe him, the DA believes him...

You apparently have more information than the CNN article contains. Sheriff's deputies have released an affidavit signed by the shooter, on which the article is based, and have made no mention of any findings of their own. They have submitted the case to the prosecutors, who have not yet published a response.

Or am I missing something?

most rationally thinking individuals who have read the details believe him ( save a few "jaded" folks )

I cannot imagine any rationally thinking individual "believing" the story of anyone they do not know about something they have no knowledge of simply because said individual has signed an affidavit.

But the criminalization of someone defending himself within the law nauseates me.

On that we agree. Was the orange grower doing that? He says so.

csmsss
May 9, 2009, 05:52 PM
Csmsss on the other hand seems to believe society is too soft, but advocates murder in place of working to change society's stance towards crime. This is a strange stance to take in a public forumHow dare you. How dare you. How dare you.

In no way, shape or form did I advocate the commission of ANY illegal act, let alone murder. You have chosen to twist my words beyond comprehension in order to slander and malign me.

Only someone utterly deficient in intellect or honesty could interpret such a thing from my remarks. You, sir (and I use that word as loosely as it can be used) are not worth even a single further comment. Rot in hell.

OldMarksman
May 9, 2009, 06:37 PM
In no way, shape or form did I advocate the commission of ANY illegal act, let alone murder.

csmsss, I'm afraid I interpreted your remark "he did the public a great service" (by shooting at thieves) about the same as did Mr. Anthony.

You also said

I have no problems whatsoever with anyone who defends property with deadly force if it is necessary.

Had he shot and killed "some thieves" in Texas in the daytime, or at any time of day anywhere else (absent the need to defend his own life), it would have been an illegal act: murder. Note that Georgia permits the use of deadly force to protect property under some circumstances, but not in cases of theft.

In case you believe this is some new, soft, liberal state of affairs, it is not. It has been the basis of law for centuries.

Don't take it personally, but that's I how you came across to me, and I do not think anyone who know me considers me utterly deficient in intellect or dishonest.

If I interpreted your remarks incorrectly, pardon me.

OuTcAsT
May 9, 2009, 09:07 PM
It seems that you know that society views killing over theft as murder, but that this belief is incorrect and detrimental. Do I have your viewpoint correct?


Michael;
Respectfully, no. I do not believe that the laws against killing to protect property are incorrect or detrimental. In fact I have re-read my posts and fail to see how I portrayed that point of view.

But the fact of the matter is that this case has little to do with the theft (as far as the farmer is concerned) Because he did not shoot to protect property, but for his own life. If I thought that there was any doubt about this point I would be the first to condemn this as a bad shoot. So to answer your question, no.

By the same token, I refuse to bemoan the fact that when someone is stupid enough to commit a property crime, and in the process puts someones life in the gravest of danger, so much so that they are compelled to defend themselves with deadly force, that the criminal may be on the losing end.

Theft is one thing, trying to kill me to get it is quite another.

I won't fault you for assuming the results of the investigation lend credibility to his story; I just know better


Then this is where we will have to agree to disagree.

OldMarksman


True for a limited period of a few years in some U. S. territories, but as each of them achieved statehood all but one adopted the English Common Law which goes back about a milenium.

Yes the states did eventually begin to adopt the tenets of Casuistry as a basis for trying cases, but some states still had executions as a penalty for certain property crimes into the 20th century. I am not advocating this as a proper penalty, just stating a point of fact. :)

You apparently have more information than the CNN article contains. Sheriff's deputies have released an affidavit signed by the shooter, on which the article is based, and have made no mention of any findings of their own.

Perhaps I misread but; (emphasis mine)

MIAMI, Florida (CNN) -- Authorities do not plan to file charges against a Florida orange grove owner who fatally shot a 21-year-old woman, saying he is protected under the state's controversial "no retreat" law.

Authorities will forward their information to prosecutors, Judd said, but are "not going to file any charges [against Jones] at this point, because we don't see any reason to arrest Mr. Jones," Judd said. "... It appears, at this point in the investigation, Mr. Jones was completely, legally justified in his actions."


I believe you may be confusing the charges against the driver/thief which are still under on-going investigation.

I cannot imagine any rationally thinking individual "believing" the story of anyone they do not know about something they have no knowledge of simply because said individual has signed an affidavit.



All I can say is, his affidavit was convincing enough for other people he did not know, the Sheriff, the DA and even;

Brian Malte of the Brady Campaign. "This person, regardless of the situation, may have done the right thing,

Yet he is still being tried in this court of public opinion?


In case you believe this is some new, soft, liberal state of affairs, it is not.

No, there always have been bleeding hearts who wring their hands and screech loudly any time a criminal puts himself in jeopardy by committing a crime and winds up on the wrong end of things, nothing new there, but in this particular case I cannot see how the sentiment has become so misplaced.

Al Norris
May 9, 2009, 09:13 PM
This thread keeps skirting on the edges of ethics/morality. Back at post #81, I specifically stated that this isuue was moot. Yet here we are, still hedging our bets.

Before this delves further towards the gutter, it's Closed.

Edit: I see that OuTcAsT crossposted with mine. Just so there is no confusion, he is not the reason for this threads closure.