FL law protects homeowner who shot woman in SUV

[Double Naught Spy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Wildalaska]

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]

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]

Ken, Ain't you got a trip to pack for? Yer not takin' a laptop are you?
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]

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

[Al Norris]

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.

Originally Posted by JuanCarlos

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.

Originally Posted by Wildalaska

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]

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

WildthissceanariowouldmakeagreatehticorslawschoolquestionAlaska TM

[Al Norris]

Never said my viewpoint was popular or non-controversial.

[OuTcAsT]

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]

"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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

WildkudosforhonestyAlaska TM

[Doggieman]

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!

[alloy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 ?