FL law protects homeowner who shot woman in SUV

Status
Not open for further replies.
But consider the escalation factor. Thats the shiver up my fat covered spine
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

I guess you miss the point too

WildsomeoneelsewontAlaska TM
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

Nope, pretty sure he's spot-on
 
Last edited:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
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?
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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

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
Click to expand...

Good point. My inner skeptic ain't always right, and I know this. ;)
 
Exactly, thankfully the law supports common sense in this case. Guess the Flordia legislature just does not get it.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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:
 
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)
Click to expand...

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

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

WildandthecarthiefcomesbackasScarabaeinaeAlaska
Click to expand...

Careful there Bro, That may just be your opinion he's pushin' around thru eternity :p
 
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.
JuanCarlos said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Wildalaska said:
And that escalated the situation. Hence the carapace in the next life.
Click to expand...
Careful, Ken. That kind of logic may be used to imprison anyone who carries for any reason.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top