SUV for self defense.

The fellow robbed this person at gunpoint and used deadly force which probably constitutes quite a few felony offenses. It the guy was still in possesion of his firearm then the SUV constitutes deadly force vs. deadly force. Basically a part of the "castle" doctrine that was recently passed in Florida. The vicitm had no duty to retreat and you can stand your ground and fight back. So in Florida if you use deadly force to commit a crime against an individual your fair game for the victim if you dont surrender.

I havent read all the circumstances but if the felon had dropped his weapon and assumed a submissive position and then the guy took him out then that might make for a case against him. If the felon had his pistol on him when he was hit he was still capable of using deadly force,too bad for him as the law doesnt require you to be shot before you can defend yourself if you are in fear for your life and the perp is capable of using deadly force.
 
But Storer was no longer involved in a situation that required him to defend himself.
Storer actively persued the dirtbag, putting himself BACK into a dangerous situation.
The Castle Doctrine could have been employed WHEN SAID DIRTBAG CONFRONTED STORER WITH THE WEAPON.

I applaud the outcome but I can't rationalize how Storer went about it UNLESS there was a confrontation when Storer went after dirtbag and DB pulled his gun.
Otherwise, Storer should've let the police handle it. He could've follow3ed from a distance to keep tabs on the DB.
That being said, if someone in my home, business, on the street or anywhere hurt my wife or child, I'd be hardput to even dial 911 before I went after them and taught them what a bad people they were.
 
I can't believe I forgot about this!

The "right-to-shoot" law would apply to this case would it not? Defendant was in fear for his life and so killed the BG just to be safe, what if that BG would've gone back to Storer after seeing only $15 in the bag? That could've been a possibility. Eghad makes a point of the Florida law stating that you can stand your ground against a threat. Of course all of us are armchair quarterbacking this, but in a heat of passion people have been known to do crazy things it's easy for us to say that it's wrong because it's vigilantism, but we weren't in Storer's shoes.


Epyon
 
Lets try this argument. I rob you at gunpoint and then run away leaving you empty handed, but unharmed. You jump in your car and try to run me over and kill me. I turn and fire my gun at you killing you in self defence. Was I justified? I mean, sure I robbed you but all I took was your wallet and jewelry. You tried to take my life right?
 
Lets try this argument. I rob you at gunpoint and then run away leaving you empty handed, but unharmed. You jump in your car and try to run me over and kill me. I turn and fire my gun at you killing you in self defence. Was I justified? I mean, sure I robbed you but all I took was your wallet and jewelry. You tried to take my life right?
Click to expand...

Nope, because since it was YOU who initiated the crime, ANY consequence that follows is YOUR responsibility.

Another simple example: If a legal CCW permit holder initiated a conflict that escalated into the other person then using violence, and then the CCW holder shoots that person, it is the CCW holder that would almost for sure be found to be at fault and held responsible for the killing.
A claim of self defense won't hold if it was the CCW holder that STARTED the conflict. That's why we who carry must be more pleasantly social than we might have been before we started carrying.

I'm getting nervous about some of you who take the side of the criminal on this one and claim the killing wasn't justified (it was).
If we continue on this path here in the States, this is where we're going to end up: http://www.socialaffairsunit.org.uk/blog/archives/000219.php

and eventually arriving here: http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=218447

In trying to be supposedly compassionate and kind, we could lose all sense of justice where the criminals have more rights than the victims they attack as has happened in England.
As far as I'm concerned, someone who commits a willful crime against another using any kind of weapon has no rights other than to be allowed to die immediately at the hands of the victim... if possible.

Carter
 
That's good littlmak!
Now the BG is in the role of "the attacked" and is protecting HIS life.
Interesting.
But I think CDH has a point.
But don't you have to be in IMMEDIATE fear of your life in order to fight/shoot/kill/maim the BG.
If you rob me at gun point and get away, I'm still gonna be pissed a day, a week, a month, year or longer.
Do I STILL have the "right", after a month lets say, to seek you out and shoot you?
CDH,
Speaking for myself, thinking Storer was in the wrong has absolutely nothing to do with kindness +/or compassion.
The threat had passed.
Storer had his chance to act but didn't/couldn't.
He REINJECTED himself into a defunct situation.
And why does everyone keep acting as if the threat to his life was over?! People don't just rob once! Heck, alot of times they come back to the exact same place
Click to expand...
And alot of times they don't.
Once the BG left the store, was Storer in IMMEDIATE danger of losing his life?
If so please explain.
If I'm robbed in a parking lot one night, at gunpoint, and the BG runs away.
am I LEGALLY in the right to spend the next few hours seeking him out and, when I find him hangin' out on a corner, walk up to him and plug him till he falls dead?
I think not.
 
But don't you have to be in IMMEDIATE fear of your life in order to fight/shoot/kill/maim the BG.
Click to expand...

One reason that talking about scenarios is time wasted applies to this situation as well.
We can bring up all the "laws" we want (because, of course, we are all legal experts :rolleyes: ), but when push comes to shove, the only determination of any particular situation is always going to be decided by a group of 12 non-lawyers.
In Storer's case, why should he have acted while he had a weapon pointed at him? That would have made him dead.Should we criticize him for simply being smart?
On the other hand, it was very smart to wait until the attacker had taken his attention off of him before taking direct action. Mr. Storer had no idea if the attacker would come back at a later date and perhaps kill him then if he thought Storer might be an eye witness who could convict him.

I guess we all have to ask ourselves the question if the time to draw (and fire?) comes if our actions will be taken kindly by 12 of our citizen peers.
To get back to the subject of the thread; that group of 12 decided that Mr. Storer's actions were justified. Case closed... until the next one.

For myself, I can only hope that juries in the future never lose track of who the predators are and who the victims are.

Carter
 
But Storer was no longer involved in a situation that required him to defend himself.
Storer actively persued the dirtbag, putting himself BACK into a dangerous situation.
The Castle Doctrine could have been employed WHEN SAID DIRTBAG CONFRONTED STORER WITH THE WEAPON.

I applaud the outcome but I can't rationalize how Storer went about it UNLESS there was a confrontation when Storer went after dirtbag and DB pulled his gun.
Otherwise, Storer should've let the police handle it. He could've follow3ed from a distance to keep tabs on the DB.
That being said, if someone in my home, business, on the street or anywhere hurt my wife or child, I'd be hardput to even dial 911 before I went after them and taught them what a bad people they were.
Click to expand...

Depends upon how long Mr. Storer waited to chase the perp down. If he immediately hopped into his SUV and initiated the chase immediately while the perp was still armed its back to deadly force vs deadly force. As the armed perp still constitutes a threat to the public.
 
No it's not, it's called justice. He didn't just get slapped, didn't get insulted, he got a gun pointed at him. And people can't just get to go around pointin guns at people. Ain't right. Sooner or later he mighta shot someone. Would that have been preferable? What goes around comes around. (And to the Nth degree!)
Click to expand...

Well, shucks. Lots of us have guns here, so I guess maybe I better be wary of antigunners running me down, after all I _might_ point it at someone someday.

The crime was over, he had time to call 911 and lock up his restaurant. He then got into a car, started the car, and pursued the robber. That's not a heroic application of justice, its a stupid application of vigilantism.

And he didn't 'grease the wheels' over an 'accusation' of simple bad behavior, the offender commited a wrong so agregious that a quick death was far more lenient that what he deserved. What's the problem here?
Click to expand...

The distinct lack of due process, for one. The jury of his peers, oh, I'm sure there's plenty more, but it won't matter. You see a heroic application of justice and one for the good guys, and no amount of discussion is going to change your already made up mind.
 
The crime was over, he had time to call 911 and lock up his restaurant. He then got into a car, started the car, and pursued the robber. That's not a heroic application of justice, its a stupid application of vigilantism.
Click to expand...

not according to a jury of his peers.
 
Quote:
"Well, shucks. Lots of us have guns here, so I guess maybe I better be wary of antigunners running me down, after all I _might_ point it at someone someday."
Click to expand...

He wasn't run over for having a gun, he was run over for using a gun in the MOST irrisponsible manner. Please stop insinuating that I'm advocating running people over without good reason. The continued threat that this guy would have posed to the community and others was obviously a good enough reason to a jury of his peers.


"The crime was over, he had time to call 911 and lock up his restaurant. He then got into a car, started the car, and pursued the robber. That's not a heroic application of justice, its a stupid application of vigilantism."
Click to expand...

Small detail, 'The' crime was in fact not over, and undoubtably would have continued (& escalated) until cought/stopped. While I don't think it was a 'heroic' (or wise) application of justic, I think it was just. Would you have prefered the possiblity of death/injury to the police in apprehending this joker? ("But at least his rights would be..." *smack*)


Quote:
And he didn't 'grease the wheels' over an 'accusation' of simple bad behavior, the offender commited a wrong so agregious that a quick death was far more lenient that what he deserved. What's the problem here?

"The distinct lack of due process, for one. The jury of his peers, oh, I'm sure there's plenty more, but it won't matter. You see a heroic application of justice and one for the good guys, and no amount of discussion is going to change your already made up mind."
Click to expand...

Due process doesn't mean crap after having a gun pointed at you. Again, responsiblity of 'waiving' due process happened when his gun came out. The guy killed was a plague & menace to society, neither capable of abiding or respecting our laws or the rights of people. He had a jury of one, the guy he threatened to KILL. Obviously, this has been ruled just (So much so that the community in question rallied around the store owner) and no amount of discussion in going to change your already made up mind.

How's this for a new signature:
Your rights go out the window when you act a d*mn fool.

And while the store owner might have been a fool, he wasn't a d*mn fool and therefore...got to keep his rights. :D
 
not according to a jury of his peers.
Click to expand...

Touche', Eghad. ;)

Please stop insinuating that I'm advocating running people over without good reason. The continued threat that this guy would have posed to the community and others was obviously a good enough reason to a jury of his peers.
Click to expand...

You're alledging a continued threat, that's guilty until proven innocent. That's not how our country is supposed to be run. Nor, should it have been the man who was run down who was on trial, but the Storer, who's actions need to be judged on their own.

Small detail, 'The' crime was in fact not over, and undoubtably would have continued (& escalated) until cought/stopped.
Click to expand...

How was it not over? He LEFT. Its over. Done. Finis. That is until Storer decided to let his temper get the better of him and pursued and ran him down.

I think it was just. Would you have prefered the possiblity of death/injury to the police in apprehending this joker? ("But at least his rights would be..." *smack*)
Click to expand...

I would prefer to let the justice system do its job, which is to have those who enforce the laws, and are paid, trained and equipped to do it, apprehend the suspect and then have HIM judged by a jury, and a judge mete out what punishment fit the crime.

Due process doesn't mean crap after having a gun pointed at you.
Click to expand...

Well, heck. I guess if I were so motivated I have the rights to fire up a bit of justice, Busterbury-style, then coz about 10 years ago I was held up at gun point by three teenage kids.

But, I won't, because I respect the law enough to have let the justice system punish these three guys in their own way. I think they did time, I honestly don't remember. But, I'll tell you how it happened: These three guys came out of an abandoned building and robbed me of just under $1000, then ran off across a field. Of course, at the time I was taking the money to do the night deposit in a bank, and had access to a loaded automobile.. But I didn't think running 'em down was exactly the right thing to do.

You know, they left and I was out of danger and well I didn't think that $1000 was worth a life, mine or theirs. For that matter, if I had a firearm on me at that time, I wouldn't have used it to shoot 'em in the back, either.

So, by your thinking.. I'm allowed to shoot 'em in the back as they run away, right? That's cool, coz like, they might do something again?
 
but still doesnt give someone the right to murder him. Think about this isnt it a better revenge to put a registered sex offender in prison? just think about what happens to him their.
Click to expand...


I think this is funny.

People have condemned Storer's actions because they were not self defense, they were revenge for the perpetration of a crime that had ended.

So revenge is not a good justification for such acts.

But then we get the "reasoning" for putting a sex offender in jail is because it's better vengeance (revenge) than just killing him.

So please decide, which is it going to be: revenge is bad, or revenge is good?
Because the above quote indicates a desire to have it both ways.


-azurefly
 
I sorry, but you don't give a curr dog due process to see If he won't bite you again. Awesome to hear that the 3 that robbed you 'got theirs'...but frankly often times they don't. Doesn't mean they woulnd't have deserved it or that your town wouldn't have been a nicer/safer place if you had.
I don't care. I'm Done. Leave all the worthless peices of crap free to run around and rely on someone else to take care of them. I know that would make ME feel like a good & responsible member of the community.

"So Frank, then what did you do?"
"Well, I called the cops and locked the door. Then when I got home I let my wife be the big spoon and cradle my fetal positioned body."

Is that what it means to be a red blooded american? F! I think this guy deserved an apple pie.
 
gfen said:
I fail to see which side you're on, because as I read it, you suggest that driving over people is clearly acceptable behaviour if you accuse them of committing a wrong, courts be damned.

I dunno, that seems to smack of "psychopathic" to me.
Click to expand...


Nice. Why didn't you quote the part where I said, "I can't fully get behind chasing this useless pile of dung down with the SUV; that's why I wish Shorer had had a gun on him to do the job right at the moment the crime was perpetrated against him. No fuss, no muss"?? :confused:

I guess that including the mitigating statement I made wouldn't have given your post as much "oomph," or enabled you to vilify me as much as you did.

If someone had just robbed you at gunpoint, would you like it if someone downplayed what had happened and referred to the situation as "you 'accusing' him of committing a wrong"?

I think it's pretty laughable and disingenuous that you described Mr. Shorer's situation that way. You delegitimize the fact that he KNEW he was after the person who actually robbed him. The difference between him and a jury or a court is stark: for him, there is no question about the crime. For them, the story has to be reconstructed because they didn't live it, but for Shorer, it's a no-brainer.

So to recap: I did not in any way say, nor did I even imply, that I wish it to be the norm that crime victims follow after their attackers and run them down. I DO, however, understand the passionate fury that must follow being victimized and so I can empathize, and understand why he did it. I'm glad that an armed robber is dead, yes, because he was worthless trash. And I feel that society is deteriorating, and the more criminals are not struck down by their victims, the worse things will get. I believe the good people in society needs to rise up against the evil ones when faced with their evil, but of course I prefer that it be done as the crime is happening.

Honestly, I really think that our codified laws must have come about only after mankind spent a great length of time dealing with interpersonal crimes in any way that the victim felt justified in doing so. In other words, I bet we spent thousands of years doing the club/rock version of what Shorer did when someone messed with us. I think it's primal to wish to strike down someone who does a great injustice or harm to you. We certainly are forced to admit that our criminal courts fall woefully short in addressing our criminal element with adequate harshness.


"Behavior," eh? Any chance you're in England?


-azurefly
 
gfen said:
Well, heck. I guess if I were so motivated I have the rights to fire up a bit of justice, Busterbury-style, then coz about 10 years ago I was held up at gun point by three teenage kids.

But, I won't, because I respect the law enough to have let the justice system punish these three guys in their own way. I think they did time, I honestly don't remember.
Click to expand...


How could you not remember? Were you not called as a witness in their trials?! :rolleyes:

Either you know they were apprehended for robbing YOU and subsequently went to trial, and either were or were not convicted, or they were NOT. Jeezum cripes, if three guys had ever robbed me at gunpoint, you can bet your youknowwhat I'd remember what ended up happening.

Could it be that you're concealing some knowledge that they were NOT apprehended for the crime they committed against you? And that not only were they not dealt "vigilante justice," they were not dealt ANY justice?

BTW, it doesn't count if they were later picked up and did time for a different crime. That would not be the same as justice for your victimization.


gfen said:
These three guys came out of an abandoned building and robbed me of just under $1000, then ran off across a field. Of course, at the time I was taking the money to do the night deposit in a bank, and had access to a loaded automobile.. But I didn't think running 'em down was exactly the right thing to do.

You know, they left and I was out of danger and well I didn't think that $1000 was worth a life, mine or theirs.
Click to expand...


Fine, I don't think I would have hopped into my car and run them down, either. I have not said that I believe that's the proper course of action; however, I don't really have a problem with it if an actual victim does that to his actual attacker. Takes out one more guy (or three) who might rob me or mine.

And I note that you say the money was not worth a life. I always think such digressions are disingenuous: this was about BEING ROBBED, AT GUNPOINT, PRESUMABLY UNDER THREAT OF DEATH IF YOU DID NOT COMPLY. It was NOT about the monetary amount. That is an absurd distraction from the matter. Robbery is about what they're threatening you with, not how much you may lose. If I am ever robbed, I believe I will respond as though my life is in jeopardy, because that's what being robbed means.

I have a crapload more respect for MY LIFE than I have for any robber's. It sounds like you are still stuck on the notion that it would have been a tragedy if you could have gotten the drop on one of these dungpiles and killed one or two and sent the rest running. Me, I'd buy the man or woman who does that a beer, shake his hand, smile and thank 'im.



-azurefly
 
All three pleaded guilty, I assume they did time. At that point, I wasn't really interested. The appropriate parties were handling things, and I no longer had any need to be involved, I had a life to lead instead of a moment to live in.

Three idiots with weapons take precedence over anything I could've, or would've, done. All the machismo goes out of the windows when you're contemplating your options, and the proper response was, "Here ya go, would you like anything else?" The act of being robbed played out jsut like I expected it would, and has since made me think long and hard about what would happen to me if I should experience it again in the future, when I am carrying a concealed weapon, with enough training to know how to draw and use it in an effective manner.

And, if I could go back in time to that day, and slip a S&W Model 38 into my pocket, just like the one I often carry now, I know what my response would've been: "Here ya go, would you like anything else?"

And, if that event were moved to FL, circa now, I wouldn't hop in the car and run 'em down, either. Because I'm better than that sort of response.
 
Neither would I hop into my car and run them down.
Instead, though, I would certainly hope to get the opportunity to draw on them and respond decisively to their threat to my life.

None of this, "My watch and wallet are not worth a human life" b.s.
The kind of person who would stick me up with a gun to take my personal wealth just because he wants it has forfeited his humanity and his right to life. If he loses it, there is no reason to cry.

Save your tears for the good people in the world.


-azurefly
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top