FL law protects homeowner who shot woman in SUV

[Mike Irwin]

" 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]

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]

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]

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

WildIHATETOFLYAlaska TM

 

[Al Norris]

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]

"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]

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

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?

 

[Wildalaska]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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!
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]

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]

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]

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]

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...

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.