Shooting in Jensen Beach FL.
Teens do a theft at Jewelry store. Store clerk tries to stop teen with jewelry and struggles with thief turning it into a technical robbery. Teens get away and flee in car. 2nd Clerk shoots the vehicle striking the passenger, the main thief and then vehicle crashes. Driver flees on foot but is later captured. Shot teen is in grave condition in hospital. Sheriff states that if the teen dies the other teen will be charged with murder (FL felony murder law) but no mention of charges against the clerk: WPBF Teen in grave condition after being shot during robbery
Youtube
Update link to TCPalm with actual shooting video: Unclear if jewelry store employee will be charged for shooting teen

Yeah, that was dumb as hell. In some jurisdictions, it might be legal, or at least, you won't get charged. But it's dumb all over.

I seem to recall a dude who decided to shoot at a burglar as he drove off. Bullet bounced off the car's glass and killed one of his neighbors.

Protip: "could" and "should" ain't the same thing.

Maybe instead of calling the clerk out we should be calling the thieves/robbers out. They are the catalyst in the story and without them there would be no story to begin with.

Do stupid stuff.....get stupid results. I get so sick of people placing blame elsewhere instead of right squarely where it belongs, and if his state feels the clerk was within his rights and won't be charged then it must agree as well.

Otherwise just open the front door and place a sign out front that says "Take what you want".

Just my take on it.
Dale

It's not about blame or sending messages. There's a reason why I said he was dumb, and not that he should be in jail.

Firing at a fleeing vehicle when there's no imminent threat only serves to put the public in danger unnecessarily. There's a reason why most police departments prohibit or at least discourage the practice.

In this case so far its a "Nice shot"

Press is hearsay & inherently unreliable. The wise route is to wait until cops conclude their investigation. That's when we'll know facts.

I agree with not shooting at moving vehicles. A dead driver of a speeding vehicle leaves it as a de facto unguided missile.

My former's agency's rules & regs denied cops ability to shoot at escaping vehicles. In extreme cases (known murderer) watch commander could make the call. I've never heard a watch commander make that call.

Enough time has gone by that at least 3 "I will sue them for you" attorneys have contacted the family of the shot crook. Hope I'm wrong but doubt it.

__________________
14 S&W Revs none with locks!

There's a reason lawyers are in the bottom third of America's most admired professions.

Ambulance chasers should be disbarred. Avenatti would be a good place to start.

Regardless of "did society a favor" sentiments, shooting at a fleeing car DOES NOT qualify for your life being in jeopardy IMO. High potential risk over insured items.

Oh, would you not love to be the Watch Commander. Bet it goes something like this...

"Lt. Kamikaze , our department after thoughtful consideration decided this was a bad practice; HOWEVER, we are giving you the option of disregarding our decision, BECAUSE, that way we can hold YOU responsible no matter which choice is made."

"Why thank you, Captain Machiavelli."

__________________
Certified Curmudgeon

Different places, slightly different rules.

In some jurisdictions the commission of what would otherwise be a Burglary IS by law a Robbery if done in the presence of the owner of the property or a person "reasonably likley" to intervene.

(Without requiring actual intervention.)

__________________
Certified Curmudgeon

And there's also numerous reasons why certain neighborhoods go to ****. One of them just possibly could be removing the individual's right to defend self, family, business, or PROPERTY in a manner that might possibly deter such criminal acts from happening in the future.

Every time a law enforcement official has to use their weapon something unintended can or sometimes does happen. Instead of blaming the officers for doing their job maybe we should hold the perps accountable for committing the crime as well as any unintended consequences that may arise during their prevention/apprehension.

Waa waa waa……..someone robbed a place or had a part in a robbery and got shot. Cry me a river. No innocents hurt but we are going to debate what COULD have happened? Really?

I guess we should arm our beat cops with clubs and pepper spray as other countries have, as tasers and guns might have unintended consequences for them here as well. Heck a bystander might actually get some pepper spray in their eyes if downwind...…..so better not give them that either.

Dale

While in general shooting at a fleeing thief is regarded as illegal, I am not that much of a fan of that thought. They are still in the commission of a crime. Just because one can get prosecuted for doing itt doesn't make it right. You can get prosecuted for a 20 round magazine in New Jersey, doesn't make it right. So, if they had just shot your wife down in cold blood, had turned and were fleeing you would just let them go? OK, fine, I am sure the prosecuting attorney would think highly of you.. But, my line is in a differ part of the sand.

Yes, a bystander, if there were any, could have been hurt. Lots of things could have and didn't. If some one could get hurt LEOs should never ever chase a anyone fleeing in a car. The innocent get hurt in chases all the time, Lots of property damage.

I thought he had his gun pointed at me from the car.

Thats a no go for a good shoot in florida

__________________
Spin The Wheel

Yes, I hear you Dale, but we don't live in a fair world. Yes, the thieves are the instigators and probably deserve what they got, but in the real world, we want to keep ourselves out of prison.

Where I live, it's legal to use deadly force to stop a robbery in progress. However, if the suspect is fleeing, let them go. You are no longer in danger and therefore, no longer have the right to use deadly force.

Further, what if the fleeing felon decides to turn and defend themselves instead of continuing to run? Now you're in a gun fight. That's never good.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

Geez in the name of legal liablilty and cowardice the theives/robbers have already won with some folks it seems.

What's next.........letting looters run rampant in times of riot or national emergency?

Dale

I live a few miles from JB, and the Martin County sheriff is NOT one to file frivolous charges against anyone stopping a crime. He endorses getting a firearm to protect yourself and to use it. His department is very "effective" in comparison to several further south. He is very much "Not in MY house." I think any possible investigation of the clerk ended about as soon as it started.

Down the road? Anyone's guess, but I don't see the MCSO putting much time into it.

Works for me.

I am not an LEO or lawyer, but in this specific situation (armed robbery, suspects fled, then shot by victim without bystanders or other innocents hurt) I could see how the local authorities would not press charges. However, one can imagine all the ways this could have gone in all sorts of wrong directions for all the non-criminals, but it’s perfectly understandable as a “heat of the moment” response. Not really smart though.

__________________
Alan
SWCA LM 2023, SWHF 220

If we are going to "what if" all the possible things that could have gone wrong with this scenario.....but didn't then we must also "what if" the following possible scenario:


"What if" they robbed your place of business and you were legally armed and could have legally done something to possibly apprehend or stop them and you chose not to.

Then "what if" the perpetrators then left your place of business and robbed yet another place of business killing the owner, an employee, and a customer as well as her two small children who just happened to be in the store at the time.

We can literally "what if" this scenario to death, but the fact remains that what could/possibly/might have happened in this example, with regards to "what ifs" did not happen.

Dale

Check Florida law.

In the name of not bouncing a shot off a window and killing Grandma Carmody down the street as she watches Jeopardy, some dude can have my TV.

Not my problem. I am not the police.

Literally, you're using "take me to jail" logic, dude.

Again, I hear you Dale, but if we break the law then we're criminals.

It's fun to talk bravely on the internet, but when it's you that will spend the rest of your life in prison, I hope you think twice before taking someone's life just because they stole a rock.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

Shooting at a fleeing vehicle is dangerous legally even under circumstances where it is legal. If anything goes sideways and injures an uninvolved person, such as thru a vehicle crash, there could be substantial civil liability.

Well, President Michael Dukakis answered this question already!

__________________
Certified Curmudgeon

Just watched the local news and the MCSD said no charges are pending against the clerk, but that one suspect was not expected to live and if he died, the other suspect would be charged with his death.

As said in the movie Tombstone...….Well, bye.

What does the Prosecutor know about the law know in Florida anyways.

Dale

As previously stated the clerk did not break Florida law.

Geez......is it a comprehension thing? Just post your address so everyone criminal can come take your "rocks."

Dale

Let's see, theft, even robbery, is NOT killing or maiming someone & then running. In most states, fleeing a violent felony, putting the gen pop in danger, is justification to shoot at the fleeing felon.
As to LEO chasing people, again, in most jurisdictions, LEO will be told to stand down if the risk to the public exceeds the risk of the guy getting away., Yes, dept, cities, counties get sued for this stuff all the time. It is why the bad guys run. They know they are not likely to be chased if the risk is worth the reward. Far too many vigilante mindsets out there.

__________________
NRA Cert. Inst. IDPA CSO

Update as reported by TCPalm: Unclear if jewelry store employee will be charged for shooting teen

Well of course they may be pressured into charging the clerk, as that's the case now with any gun-related story. They'll whine, cry, moan, and riot about the poor perp being a good kid right after putting a picture of the shot perp on TV when he was just 9yrs old.

Heck we have folks here who are probably rooting for it to happen it seems.

Dale

Not a vigilante mindset, but why have laws if we aren't going to enforce them, or even worse disregard the law and still go after someone who acted within the law.

Folks are sick and tired of being the victims of crime and even more sicker of everyone making the perps out to be the victims. Last time I checked it wasn't convenient to tote a cop around with you all day and night.

I'm not out there acting as a vigilante, I'm just saying if someone acts within the confines of their existing laws who are we to judge them...…..especially if judging while from a state with more restrictive laws than the victim's? (The victim is the clerk by the way, in case you are having a hard time following.)

Dale

That is exactly a vigilante mindset. You're not a cop. The clerk was not a cop.

Cops...…..Civilians on Patrol.

If they hang the clerk out to dry will it make you happy? There's probably as much of a chance of that happening as not, even if he did act within the law.

Maybe we all should just let the criminals run amok as anyone attempting to fight back will be demonized as a crazed vigilante. How convenient for the criminals and their bleeding heart ilk. And we all know the bleeding hearts would never criminalize the police for simply doing their jobs...…...so why should we as "civilians" even attempt to defend ourselves, family, or property?

Dale

We tried that already, it was called the 70s.

__________________
Certified Curmudgeon

I thought he had his gun pointed at me from the car.[/QUOTE]

Getting it to work for a jury might be tougher.

I once met a guy who'd shot a kid who was stealing stuff out of his garage. He didn't pull jail time, but told me he spent pretty much every penny he had on legal fees. Far more expense than anything the kid could have stolen from his garage. The kid lived luckily or it may have turned out worse.

My take: I do not own, nor have I ever owned, anything for which I would shoot and possibly kill another human being. If my life is in imminent danger, or someone close to me is in mortal peril, I will do whatever I have to do. That's very different, and I will be armed.

Things are cheap compared to human lives, and I am not nor have I ever been a police officer.

I would consider it the height of stupidity for me to fire at a fleeing thief, be he on foot or in a vehicle.

Sure, thieves are lowlifes. Certainly we could do with a lot fewer of them. But nobody has appointed me Lord High Executioner or Darwin's right hand man.

Again, threaten my life or attempt to inflict bodily harm, and all bets are off. I don't carry a gun as a fashion accessory, like some of the Wally World Commandos. But if somebody wants my wallet, I'm not going to center-punch him. If anybody here does feel justified in plugging a fleeing thief, I guess you can play by your rules, and consider me a Goody Two-Shoes to your heart's content.

I don't give a chilly damn what the law says--that's my law, and I've lived by it for a lot of years.

__________________
Oh well, what the hell.

I couldn't agree more.

I'm actually surprised at how bloodthirsty some are. I agree with capital punishment if you can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. I believe in defending yourself and family from imminent death or great bodily harm. I will not rejoice at the death of another human regardless of what they've done.

__________________
Freedom isn't free.

I asked a person knowing gun laws if I could shoot a person to stop them from attempting to steal my truck at night.

He said it is not legal to use deadly force to protect property. Especially if the perp is not using deadly force against me. If the perp isn't armed then the shooting possibly could go bad for me in court. He said if I was to point a gun at the perp then the perp could say he feared for his life and then attack me in self defense. The DA and a jury could say I was the bad guy.

He said I should keep my distance but inform the perp the police were on their way. If the perp attempts to attack me at that time then I can be in fear for my life and possibly have reason to use deadly force.

Also as some said once the perps were going away from the store they were possibly no longer a deadly threat against the store manager/clerk. The way some laws read the clerk could possibly be charged with murder.
Bottom line is know the laws regarding use of deadly force and never draw your gun unless you have no alternative to escape harm or deadly force. There is a reason many LEOs never use their gun throughout their career on the job. Sad to say many LEOs have been killed because they thought they had control of the situation so didn't draw their weapon when they should have.

Bad thing hearing news about shootings is the story we hear is often lacking in facts. To often the news paints a very bad picture that is far from reality.

What if they "center punched" you after taking your wallet...……..or are you implying they are unarmed and you would willfully give over your wallet while yourself being armed?

I guess we're back to playing the what if game again. My bad. But unfortunately not all robberies go down without a violent ending portrayed by the perp. I guess you could breath a sigh of relief that he didn't shoot you anyways, just for the thrill of it while watching you bleed out. That never happens though....right?

Dale

Well, this depends on where you live.
BG jumps in to a guys running SUV that had all his stuff for work and drives away.
Guy shoots with a pistol through the back window killing the BG.
Said he though he saw a gun in the BG hand.
Trial of man that shot the BG was 11 woman & 1 man.(USBP agent).
Found not guilty.......
In Spokane, WA.

__________________
Only difference Fool/Mule-ears

"I asked a person knowing gun laws if I could shoot a person to stop them from attempting to steal my truck at night.

He said it is not legal to use deadly force to protect property. Especially if the perp is not using deadly force against me. If the perp isn't armed then the shooting possibly could go bad for me in court. He said if I was to point a gun at the perp then the perp could say he feared for his life and then attack me in self defense. The DA and a jury could say I was the bad guy.

He said I should keep my distance but inform the perp the police were on their way. If the perp attempts to attack me at that time then I can be in fear for my life and possibly have reason to use deadly force.

Also as some said once the perps were going away from the store they were possibly no longer a deadly threat against the store manager/clerk. The way some laws read the clerk could possibly be charged with murder.
Bottom line is know the laws regarding use of deadly force and never draw your gun unless you have no alternative to escape harm or deadly force. There is a reason many LEOs never use their gun throughout their career on the job. Sad to say many LEOs have been killed because they thought they had control of the situation so didn't draw their weapon when they should have.

Bad thing hearing news about shootings is the story we hear is often lacking in facts. To often the news paints a very bad picture that is far from reality."




gman51,
I'm no Houston lawyer but I believe your info from whoever you asked is wrong. Please read and learn for yourself with regards to Texas law. They used to teach this during the CHL course here in Texas...….in depth.

Per the Texas State Penal Code:
PENAL CODE CHAPTER 9. JUSTIFICATION EXCLUDING CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY



Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY. A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and
(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
(A) to prevent the other's imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or
(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and
(3) he reasonably believes that:
(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.

The only reason Texas Code went out of the way to state "theft during nighttime, or criminal mischief during nighttime", as well as "theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property" is at night it treats the lesser offenses as though the perpetrators may be armed and it is in your defense as a property owner to use deadly force at night for the lesser offenses as it is more difficult to determine whether or not the perps are truly armed after dark.

You keep coming back to that. I said he was dumb for putting rounds in the air when there was no need. I couldn't care less if it was legal or not. "Legal" doesn't mean that it's a good idea.

Could =/= should.

Now, pay attention to the part I bolded. Ignoring ethics and such, that alone is reason enough to avoid using lethal force. But hey, if you feel like losing your house, your retirement, your marriage, and maybe your freedom over whatever some moron is able to carry, go for it.

I know of an identical case where the individual was found guilty.

Your friend's advice is...bizarre. On the one hand--yeah, it's a no-shoot situation. But the reasons given are crazy.

Bottom line, you're asking the wrong question. It's never can you shoot, it's must you shoot.

I’m getting old, so maybe my listening skills are dropping, but in the video in the OP, I thought I heard the Sheriff say the employee that was struggling with the thief got hung up on the car as they were trying to escape. That was when the other employee shot. That’s different than just shooting a fleeing thief. Maybe I heard it wrong.

__________________
Vegan by proxy.

Multiple perps in a stolen vehicle, perps perform possible multiple thefts at different location(s) prior to this robbery, resulting struggle takes place, and subsequent shooting happens.

The perps pushed their luck, went on a crime spree and their luck ran out, for at least one of them anyways.

Now we are what iff'ing the scenario and second guessing the shooter in complete circles around one another.

But go back to the very first statement in this post. If they had never started the crime spree this would not have happened.

I think a lot of folks fail to realize how often this sort of crime happens at jewelry stores. It's their biggest fear. I've seen numerous examples where shop owners were robbed multiple times before being eventually being killed during one.

Ziggy you heard it correctly. I've watched the OP's video several times now. Let's say a police officer is hung up in a vehicle while attempting to stop a perp from fleeing a crime. Does his partner have the right to shoot into the vehicle to stop it in an attempt to aid the officer in distress?

Make no bones about it.....I have no doubts the clerk who fired the shot will be demonized and dragged through the mud if the mainstream press and even some folks here have their way.

Yeah the perps may have been just 16 years old but you can't tell me they weren't old enough to know what they were doing was dangerous and could eventually lead to the outcome that happened.

Once again, if you play stupid games and you win stupid prizes.

Dale

"We have no intention, as of now, based on the evidence we have, of making an arrest," Sheriff William Snyder said, referring to Treasure Coast Liquidators owner Michael Dacey, a New York Police Department detective who retired in 2003."

“We walked away believing that the shooting was justified, well within the scope of using justifiable force during the commission of a forcible felony,” Snyder said. “Unless something really dramatic changes, I do not anticipate any arrest coming out of this.

The circumstances weren't a matter of self-defense or the state's stand your ground law, Snyder said."

"Dacey told investigators he saw the scuffle, came out of the store and shot at the vehicle at least once, hitting McMillian, Snyder said.
"Michael (Dacey) stated that he believed that (the employee) had been hit by the car or he was shot," an arrest report states. "Michael stated that he used a Glock 19 firearm to fire one shot at the vehicle and he stated that he observed the rear windshield break afterward."


The shooter, Dacey, is a retired New York Police Dept detective. After all what would a retired detective know about what is permissible during a felony robbery? Of course his actions will be scrutinized to the nth degree. Won't surprise me too terribly much anymore if they don't prosecute him even if his actions were completely legal.

Some folks simply won't be happy until Florida is an east coast California.

This also begs the question...…….If the shooter had not been a retired NY detective would they have rushed so quickly to state he probably would not be charged? Say it had been a regular citizen with no law enforcement background, but yet still knew and fully understood the law with regards to justifiable deadly force?

Dale

But at least I still have my wallet. (all 3$ ) You are more likely to buy it in a car accident, this or that MAY HAVE happened aside.

Your determination to justify killing criminals to thin the herd is quite striking. I find it disturbing, to put it mildly.

You choose to neglect what I said about what I would have to do if my life were in imminent danger, in your pursuit of a belief that criminals should simply be exterminated out of hand.

I was raised on "Thou shalt not kill", but I draw the line at defending my life or that of someone else who is innocent and in mortal danger. As I said, in that case all bets are off.

I stand by what I wrote--all of it--and I respectfully decline to allow it to be played with selectively or edited to justify reflexive killing of lawbreakers.

I'm out of this one. The atmosphere has become a little unhealthy by my old-fashioned standards. Or maybe my standards aren't old-fashioned enough, as they don't go back to the days of hanging rustlers and horse thieves without trial. Or, "Hell, he needed killin'." I guess I'm just stuck with the values I've acquired in eighty-one years of seeing the best and worst of humanity.

Carry on.

__________________
Oh well, what the hell.

NOBODY can know the depth of understanding the shooter has of FL law.
Retired for 15 years and not in NY. Had an innocent been shot, (yes criminals take small children along in the cars) or the getaway car crashed into a school bus we'd be looking at a whole different scenario. Charges may not be filed for a while, depending on investigations & the DA's getting their ducks in a row. The shooters FORMER job in ANOTHER state should not matter one whit IMO. Having experienced both, sometimes emotions overrule the brain & sometimes the brain overrules the emotions. I'd hope for the latter. With the exception of a few counties, I wouldn't worry about Fl becoming Kali.