It don't look good for the store owner. He should have taken a few more classes on when and when not to use deadly force. The store owners security footage will do him in. Without the security video the store owner could have easily just said he was swinging the hatchet at me so I shot him clear case of self defense. IMO the security video does not show a self defense shooting.

A picture is worth a thousand jurors.

__________________
Music/Sports/Beer fan

I hate a thief with a passion but unless they have broken into my home I cannot justify shooting one for what they have taken and is trying to leave. Whatever he is stealing can be replaced for much less than what shooting him will likely incur. I don't think this will end well for the store owner, not the best day for the thief either. Seems to me folks are doing a lot more shooting and a lot less reasoning these days.

There you go.

Probably the attorney for the deceased's family.

Even if, for some reason, this doesn't go to court for the shooting, I got ten bucks sez an attorney's already taking statements from the deceased's family in preparation for the civil suit.

That family's liable to end up owning Michael Dunn's Army-Navy surplus store.

Somebody’s going to need to run it for the next 15 to 20 years. I suspect Mr. Dunn will be otherwise occupied.

__________________
Vegan by proxy.

I was working for the University at the time of the Lauterbach Cottage Hardware murders. Hatchet/ax are deadly weapons that in the hands of a criminal/felon IMO makes the crime a very serious to the public, and possibly to the shooter. I can't say I would vote guilty if I was on the jury unless the prosecution could prove that the deceased was not a danger to the public with a hatchet.

Lauterbach Cottage Hardware ax attacks (1981) | SangamonLink

It looks to me like the hatchet moves a few inches upward just before the shooting happens. The shooter may have repsonded to that, thinking the shoplifter was going to strike him. However the grip he had on the hatchet wasn't much of a combat grip.

What do you do with this? I think a jury has to decide.

I saw the video. I did not see a weapon in the dead guys hand, it also appears when the victim observed the gun he was attempting to raise both hands in surrender position. Added: I just watched the video again. It does appear that the dead guy was holding the axe in his. It does not appear to me that he, the dead guy was attempting to use it or threaten the shooter with it.

If shootings like we’ve had in the last few years keep up I can see “stand your ground” laws being greatly modified or removed from statues. If that happens we all lose.

I will never take a life to stop a thief. In the long run the price for doing so is way to high, in so many ways.

__________________
Always Stay Strong!

I know in TN, our statute plainly states that theft of property alone does not authorize the use of deadly force. This is also reiterated under our castle law as well. I strongly believe Mr. Dunn is done for so to speak.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If he’s found guilty it should have zero effect on SYG laws.

Dunn isn’t saying he shot this felon for shoplifting, he’s saying he shot him because he feared for his life when he tried to stop said felon from stealing his stuff and said felon had a hatchet in his felonious hand.

Dunn was within his rights to try to stop someone from stealing his stuff. If a reasonable person would have felt threatened under the same circumstances - confronting a hatchet-armed criminal on that person’s own property - then he may not be charged. I hope he isn’t.

But there are clearly other factors at work here, so he may be. As I said - we shall see. I’d bet there are other videos from other angles that may shed additional light.

If you don’t want to get shot, don’t put a hatchet in your pants that doesn’t beling to you, and definitely don’t pull that stolen hatchet from your pants when confronted by it’s lawful owner, who happens to have a pistol in his hand.

__________________
“What you got, ain’t new.”

Yeah, but it's not as simple as saying he had a fear. A "bare fear" is not enough to justify a defensive shooting. That fear must pass the "reasonable person" standard. In other words, would an average person, with average skills, in the same situation have had that same fear?

The answer is for a jury to decide. If I were on that jury, I couldn't convince myself that his fear was reasonable.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

Based on what I saw, I feel the same way.

__________________
Stay protected my friends.

Yeah, that’s why I said “reasonable person” in my post.

__________________
“What you got, ain’t new.”

I have watched the video. It appears the bad guy was holding the hatchet in his hand, not by the handle, but by the head of the hatchet.

Not so much about the video, but just hatchets in general as weapons:

If a bad guy pulled out a hatchet, I would think at that point use of deadly force could be justified. Again, this is not about the video, just about defense from a perp with a hatchet.

First, I think most of us know about the Tueller Drill. Lt. John Tueller of Salt Lake City PD came up with the 21 foot rule, which basically says that given reaction times, an attacker armed with a knife can beat a person to the draw at 21 feet or closer (I have reason to believe that distance should be increased to 25 or even 30 feet, but that is for another time).

So, if the hatchet armed man is within 21 feet and threatening you, it is pretty clear you have the right to shoot.

Now another issue to think about.

A hatchet makes a formidable weapon when thrown. Even if it does not slice you open upon impact, the weight of the thing can cause serious physical injury if it strikes you in the head, eye, etc. Again, with that possibility, who would not shoot if an idiot with a hatchet turns on you.

As for the video, I think it all depends on additional facts that we don't presently know about. I will wait to make a judgment on that until I see all of the evidence.

Huh?

I thought that what made it an "armed robbery" is the use of a weapon to commit the robbery, not the mere stealing of a weapon. Did this perp use the weapon to commit the crime?

He stole a hatchet put it into his pants now he has a concealed weapon the shopkeeper does have rights to protect his property , but to what extent ? he was trying to hold the shoplifter and stop him , some point in time that hatchet came out of his pants reveling a weapon. maybe the shopkeeper was just tired of getting ripped off all the time, maybe the the weapon went off by accident maybe when he saw that hatchet coming out of the mans pants that made him nervous and shot him. A lot of unknowns here. One thing for sure the shoplifter is never going to steal again. I don't think the shoplifter had to pay with his life. there was a reason the shoplifter got shot but was it just for shoplifting or was it that a concealed weapon came out into his right hand. Either way both men made life changing mistakes. One action causes a reaction

The Florida statutes are pretty clear. He has to be in reasonable fear of "imminent death or great bodily harm". The video shows that not to be the case at all. He was in fear of the guy stealing his property. While I will not shed a tear for the demise of a criminal, this isn't a good shoot.

What would the conversation be if this had been a police officer stopping the shoplifter with a weapon in hand. Keep in mind numerous police shootings have been ruled justified when no weapon was present. The Oklahoma shooting comes to mind, supposedly the deceased was reaching into a closed window. Double standards do not do well to bridge the gap between law abiding citizens that have doubts, and law enforcement. The standards must be the same.

Keep in mind that in some jurisdictions a city/county commissioner have the power to arrest.

Look up Laquan McDonald.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

McDonald wasn't a shoplifter, nor was he doing anything untoward other than behaving "erratically" with a knife in his hand in the middle of the street . . .

__________________
Wisdom comes thru fear . . .

John needs to take some of his video earnings and buy some clothes that fit. He probably wouldn't have that expression on his face if his pants weren't two sizes too small for him.

Originally Posted by Walkingwolf

"What would the conversation be if this had been a police officer stopping the shoplifter with a weapon in hand."




This did happen in my jurisdiction, a few years ago.

The suspect went into a sporting goods store picked up and proceeded to concealed a carbine in his pants,
Outside the store, while attempted to escape while drawing the weapon from his trousers.



The suspect was shot and killed by a responding LEO.


Weren't much said about it.


.

__________________
"IN GOD WE TRUST"

Have any of y'all read, heard or otherwise know for a certainty that
the business owner has been charged by the local Constabulary in this shooting?


If there is a grand jury seated in the county seat, to hear this if the county or
district attorney were to present this evidence in order to obtain an indictment warrant???


Just looking for the facts, anyone???


.

__________________
"IN GOD WE TRUST"

Dave—you mean actually let the facts come to light through the judicial process, rather via internet trial where anyone with a keyboard can serve as judge, jury and executioner?

That’s crazy talk!!

__________________
Possum—The other white meat!

Yeah I know, it's a crazy notion what with....letting a jury of one's peers
decide if there's grounds for an indictment. Gees


I certainly would not qualify and would be struck from any
jury pool in a case like this one, as well as most of the posters in this thread.


That old innocent until proven guilty is way over rated around these here parts



.

__________________
"IN GOD WE TRUST"

That was really hard to watch. The story says the man's father was there. I wonder if it was one of those 'I'll distract while you steal' jobs. It looks bad for the storeowner, but the father has something on his conscious too and one guy is dead.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

You SHOULD be a lawyer. I wouldn't think of that in a million years.

__________________
"He was kinda funny lookin'"

First, stop trying to bring sense and sanity to this discussion. We exist to rant!

Second, can you actually execute someone from your keyboard?

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

I haven't seen anything more recent than 24-hours ago. No mention of an empaneled grand jury or charges or anything of that nature so far. Or if there is, it's being kept quiet for now, possibly to avoid any unwanted publicity.

The store owner, Michael Dunn, already appointed himself judge, jury, and executioner, then carried out the sentence. To his way of thinking, any further action by the judicial system would be superfluous.

That sounds a lot like a BLM talking point.

Well, I missed that one. Indicted for second degree murder.

__________________
“What you got, ain’t new.”

This shouldn't surprise anyone in this thread: https://www.theledger.com/news/20181...-murder-charge

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

Well, the suspect is indicted.


Now we wait for the plea or going to trial.


It may be a year or two before we conclude this thread.


.

__________________
"IN GOD WE TRUST"

All I know is from the video. I think shooter guy is in a heap of trouble.

__________________
No baby we aint

I guess we will never know what the thief was going to do with the hatchet.

Personally I have no problem with this. I am tired of trash. It is unhealthy to live amongst trash, that is why it is collected in this country each week from homes and businesses and properly disposed of. Human waste or waste of a human, throw both in a landfill and bulldoze them under.

I hope the shooter’s attorney thinks to show Mel Gibson’s tomahawk and knife scene from the movie “The Patriot” to give the jury an idea of how dangerous an edged weapon can be.

Better hire a good lawyer...perp was clearly trying to flee...no longer a threat.

Commissioner has been charged with murder, according to today's news.

Not only has Michael Dunn been indicted and charged with second-degree murder, he's being held without bond.

You can find out why he was indicted by clicking here. And he actually shot the guy twice, which is sort of hard to see in the video.

That's really offensive to me, but now that I think about it, I genuinely couldn't care less what it sounds like. I said back in Post #36 that Dunn needed to be in the slammer. Far as I'm concerned, he's where he should be, and his next court date isn't until November 6. I hope his no bond hold stays in effect.

I'll go out on a limb here and make a guess that Michael Dunn wishes he could turn back time to any day before October 3, or even change the course of events on October 3.

If he's convicted, he'll have lots of time to second guess his decision making processes.

Looks to be a very bad shoot

__________________
Spin The Wheel

Pretty sure that would be the Dark Web.

__________________
Vegan by proxy.

I could be wrong, but my guess is he wasn't going to chop firewood for the cold widows and orphans.

Well, I'm not getting my hopes up neither way.........if this makes it to trial.

Juries can be a fickle'd bunch....I've saw slam dunk cases go sideways at trial a plenty.

We're going on three years, with a current case for a
capital offense of murder, one delay after another, with no real end in sight.


It's a mad, mad world.




.

__________________
"IN GOD WE TRUST"

I am not familiar with Florida law. This is based on general principles, and to some extent is colored by my experiences as a cop and prosecutor in two states; WA for the last 25 years. While in the civil division now, most of my experience is the criminal prosecution side, and I still do overflow work for our criminal division as needed, including appeals and felony case review/charging decisions, a few court appearances, etc. Since most of my client assignments are in criminal justice, I stay in touch. Not completely, but more than most true civil nerds. I also teach a lot on search and seizure and use of force, along with other criminal topics, both in our regional reserve academy, but for other lawyer groups, and in my "off time", write and teach on such things as a consultant. In my experience and opinion, including all full time criminal prosecution and defense practitioners, there are at most 1000 and probably no more than 500 attorneys who are qualified to actually opine, let alone try a case about use of force. Note that there have been more knowingly frivolous prosecutions of cops over the last 4 years or so than there have been actual bad shootings. The prosecution of Betty Shelby in Tulsa is a prime example, and the prosecutions in Baltimore even worse. Both of those "prosecutors" (I will not claim them as members of my tribe; they bring shame on us all) have Bar complaints pending, and should be disbarred. Mosby (Baltimore) is in real trouble, as the civil suit for malicious prosecution by 5 of the cops is still going forward, and the burdens the cops had to overcome to get to this point are staggering. It's been well established she lied from the start about both the law and the facts, and concealed potentially exculpatory evidence.

Typically, a shopkeeper has the right to detain a shoplifter. Here, it appears to be more than shoplifting; if the offender had merely kept the hatchet concealed and kept going, it would still probably be shoplifting. In WA, any use of force to overcome resistance to the taking of property makes it a robbery (2 degree, a "most serious", aka "strike), and I have convicted an offender of that at trial for essentially the same level of resistance. Use of a deadly weapon (some are deadly per se, some as used) would make it a robbery 1. I would say at best the use of the term "shoplifter" to refer to this offender is imprecise, most likely resulting from the ignorance of most people, including reporters, of what the law really is.

Allegedly, the offender had stuck the hatchet in his pants when he took it, which makes sense - he is trying to steal it without being caught. However, at the time shot, and clearly for some period before that (we do not see him pull it out), he is holding it. A weapon in hand is a weapon in play. Those who have actually had valid training on recognition and control of potentially lethal threats will know this, and will also know just how fast the attack can come. Even as used only as a striking implement, the hatchet would be a deadly weapon. Note also, as is often the case, the perspective of the camera is NOT the same as perspective of the shooter, so there are probably things that the shooter can see that the camera cannot. We also do not get to hear any commands given before the footage shown, or during it. We don't hear what the offender is saying to the store owner, and how that plays into a perception of threat. (BTW, the number of shots is relatively inane - there is ample knowledge about the ballistic reality and the legal issue - one fires until the threat has been perceived to be controlled. If that's 1, 2, or 10 does not matter.)

I also note that the shopkeeper probably does not have any ability to do anything but watch the offender. Remember, an apparent accomplice is still in the store; we don't see any way for the shopkeeper to summon assistance (cell phone, another employee, etc.), and just because the offender is down does not mean he is out of the ability to fight. I might well not approach him either, even having though about what to do in such a situation - circumstances dictate tactics. Officers are (or should be, I was) not to approach for cuffing without at least a 2:1 advantage, and a suspect with a weapon is going to be retrained before any other action is taken. Even assuming a general duty to aid under civil (tort) standards, I can articulate why a person in the shopkeeper's position should not.

There is also a significant disconnect between the real state of the law and what is advocated by some: the test is not whether the shooter is right or wrong in fact, or that the force was necessary in perfect hindsight, but whether they acted reasonably under the circumstances as they perceived them to be. That includes factors like the fact that the suspect is armed and resistive; relative physical capacity, etc. The law is clear, and has been this way for many years; the US Supreme Court explained it (this was an appeal of a verdict in favor of the assailant, based on flawed instructions from the trial court, which SCOTUS corrected) almost 130 years ago, relying on cases that were far older:

"Its import is, that if the conductor shot when there was in fact no actual danger, although, from the manner, attitude and conduct of the plaintiff, the former had reasonable cause to believe, and did believe, that an assault upon him with a deadly weapon was intended, and only fired to protect himself from such apprehended assault, the company was liable for compensatory damages. In this view of the law we think the learned court erred. It will be scarcely doubted that if the conductor was prosecuted criminally, it would be a sufficient defence that he honestly believed he was in imminent danger, and had reasonable ground for such belief. In other words, the law of self-defence justifies an act done in honest and reasonable belief of immediate danger. The familiar illustration is, that if one approaches another, pointing a pistol and indicating an intention to shoot, the latter is justified by the rule of self-defence in shooting, even to death; and that such justification is not avoided by proof that the party killed was only intending a joke, and that the pistol in his hand was unloaded. Such a defence does not rest on the actual, but on the apparent facts and the honesty of belief in danger." New Orleans & N. R. Co. v. Jopes, 142 U.S. 18, 23 (1891).

I will not go so far as to assert that the shooter was correct. I don't know. I will also not say I would have shot under those circumstances, or that I would not. I will say that it is not at all clear that he was WRONG. Getting an indictment does not say much, either. The Grand Jury process is not much protection, and certainly no better than the protection provided by my putting my license and reputation directly on the line when I charge by Information, and a judge reviews the matter for a determination of Probable Cause. (PC is a low standard, and generally does not consider an affirmative defense such as may apply here.) A prosecutor who is incorrect for whatever reason is still incorrect, whatever method they use for charging.

Far too many people, in society in general, and apparently sometimes on this forum, do not know enough about the actual analysis of a use of force in self-defense to make informed comments. Force is ugly. Effective force is far more so. That only means exactly that - not that it is incorrect.

__________________
NHI, 10-8.

About that "year or two" thing: I'll give it two weeks, maybe a month before this thread is old news. There'll be some other shooting that captures the news, or maybe another of those "good guy with a gun" stories.

In a year or two, this thread will be buried so deep in this forum, members will be doing good to even find it, much less make any further comments on it...assuming, of course, that we'll even remember it.

812.13 Robbery.—
(1) “Robbery” means the taking of money or other property which may be the subject of larceny from the person or custody of another, with intent to either permanently or temporarily deprive the person or the owner of the money or other property, when in the course of the taking there is the use of force, violence, assault, or putting in fear.
Chapter 812 Section 13 - 2012 Florida Statutes - The Florida Senate

I'm not an attorney and never have been. I have had to deal with plenty of shoplifting cases and a bunch of them where the thief struggled to get away. I never imagined that I could charge them with robbery by struggling to get away while not actually offering any violence and I never heard it suggested or heard of anyone else going there. You could be correct though and I'm not in any position to argue otherwise but I've never heard of that being done and I was pretty creative on charges at times.

I don't recall reading anything about an accomplice but then I only really read one news story. The video I saw didn't appear to show any violence toward the shooter, just the thief (robber?) trying to pull away and flee.

Thanks for your detailed informative post.

Here in CA, a murder trial will take at least two years before it actually goes to trial. Many never make it to trial.



Count me in that number. I have read law and discussed it much, but at best I'm a rank beginner when trying to understand it. That was a very lucid and well thought out post. I do have some questions though:

You quoted this: This is how I've always understood using self-defense as a justification to be interpreted. The assault doesn't need to be real, the defender only needs to believe it's real.

Doesn't this mean that Mr. Dunn will now have to prove that his fear was reasonable? Won't his explanation have to pass the "reasonable person" test? Even when taking the possibility of perspective into account, how can he claim that he was in fear for his life when the deceased was pulling away as hard as this guy was? At no time in the video does the deceased attempt to use the hatchet to ward off or assault Dunn.

You're explanation of the process was excellent Doug, I just don't see how it can come down any other way than 2nd degree murder for this one. I've been wrong plenty and for Dunn's sake I hope I'm wrong here, but it will have to be some amazing evidence/explaining to change this to justified for me. Even so, I'm open and interested to hear the outcome on this one.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

Lots of speculation. Lots of opinions. OK, I'll play along: Maybe Florida business owners are just getting sick and tired of being victimized by thieving thugs. Maybe this store owner just slipped past the end of his rope and reacted in a manner influenced by a lifetime of experience. I don't know, and I doubt any of us will ever know.

I'm sure that the Florida judicial system will make a spectacle event of this unfortunate incident, probably drag it out for a year or two. Nothing will make it all right, no matter the outcome.

Sad for everyone involved, including the people who will have to carefully weigh all the evidence and reach conclusions.