[OuTcAsT]

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.