Not Hypothetical

[tenntex32]

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.

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

 

[STCM(SW)]

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.

 

[tenntex32]

"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.

 

[Wise_A]

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

 

[Ziggy2525]

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.

 

[tenntex32]

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

 

[tenntex32]

"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

 

[nachogrande]

I GOT CENTER PUNCHED.

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

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.

 

[shouldazagged]

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

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.

 

[nachogrande]

HE ISN'T WILD BILL & NOT IN DODGE CITY

"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

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.

 

[tenntex32]

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

I find your determination to demonize the victim, just to victimize the perp quite disturbing.....to put it mildly.

Dale

 

[tlawler]

My take on this:
1.The robbery was over and they no longer posed an immediate threat to anyone.
2. The items they stole were insured and could not harm anyone.
3. The clerk put innocent lives in danger by a) discharging a firearm in a potentially heavily populated area, and b) disabling the driver and turning a 2 ton vehicle into an "unguided missle."

The only way the clerk would be justified shooting at the fleeing vehicle is if they had robbed a gun store and made off with firearms. Then the clerk would be stopping the influx of illegal weapons into the criminal population of the community and thereby potentially saving subsequent lives.

Sure, the clerk got off a lucky shot, disabling the driver, who then crashed harmlessly. But luck is a fickle woman and rarely works out to one's advantage. It's all about cause and effect...and priorities.

I know my opinions are not popular with many here, but they are my opinions and I respect your opinions. I just think too many people have a hero complex.

 

[tenntex32]

Not a hero complex or vigilante.

Just tired of folks making the victims out to be the bad guys. It happens way to often at the peril of the victims and to the benefit of the perpetrators.

That's all.

I don't walk the streets hoping for an altercation to happen so I can intervene. Those are other's words and not mine. (Once again in an effort to demonize those who know their local laws and might actually have to use a gun within the boundaries of such.)

I live out in the county here in Texas and I guess we take a different approach, legally mind you, with the protection of life AND property.

Dale

 

[Ziggy2525]

My take on this:
1.The robbery was over and they no longer posed an immediate threat to anyone.
2. The items they stole were insured and could not harm anyone.
3. The clerk put innocent lives in danger by a) discharging a firearm in a potentially heavily populated area, and b) disabling the driver and turning a 2 ton vehicle into an "unguided missle."

The only way the clerk would be justified shooting at the fleeing vehicle is if they had robbed a gun store and made off with firearms. Then the clerk would be stopping the influx of illegal weapons into the criminal population of the community and thereby potentially saving subsequent lives.

Sure, the clerk got off a lucky shot, disabling the driver, who then crashed harmlessly. But luck is a fickle woman and rarely works out to one's advantage. It's all about cause and effect...and priorities.

I know my opinions are not popular with many here, but they are my opinions and I respect your opinions. I just think too many people have a hero complex.

If those were the facts from the Sheriff, I'd agree with you. But as I understand it from the video and newspaper article, that isn't what happened. This is my take on the facts.

1) The robbery wasn't over. The jewelry store employee was using physical force, not deadly force, to try to recover their property. Pretty sure they have that right.

2) The getaway driver then used the car as a deadly weapon against the jewelery store employee.

3) The retired cop/jewelery store owner used deadly force to stop the deadly force attack against his employee.

4) The jewelery store owner shot the passenger, not the driver. My impression from the video is it was the passenger that had a hold of the employee and that's the guy that got shot. The driver fled the scene and was captured a short time later uninjured.

 

[tenntex32]

If those were the facts from the Sheriff, I'd agree with you. But as I understand it from the video and newspaper article, that isn't what happened. This is my take on the facts.

1) The robbery wasn't over. The jewelry store employee was using physical force, not deadly force, to try to recover their property. Pretty sure they have that right.

2) The getaway driver then used the car as a deadly weapon against the jewelery store employee.

3) The retired cop/jewelery store owner used deadly force to stop the deadly force attack against his employee.

4) The jewelery store owner shot the passenger, not the driver. My impression from the video is it was the passenger that had a hold of the employee and that's the guy that got shot. The driver fled the scene and was captured a short time later uninjured.

Don't go using common sense and thinking for yourself. We are supposed to believe the "narrative" that this was a gun crazed vigilante firing wildly and illegally at the perps for no good reason at all.

After all, even though the law may allow for it, there is never a good reason to ever use a gun...……..right? I mean there's a million other things you could have/should have done other than using a gun.

I guess just owning a gun now makes you vigilante looking for an altercation.

The perps, while on a crime spree, could have left here unharmed only to rob again and possibly injure/kill other victims......but instead they were both be taken off the streets due to the ensuing altercation. Which would you prefer?

While I'm sure both perps were fine upstanding citizens within the community, making straight A's in school and volunteering their free time down at the children's home, I sincerely doubt their life of crime would have ended if they were allowed to simply walk away from this incident unscathed. Then again maybe the proceeds from stolen car and jewelry was going to fund a large donation to Toys For Tots this holiday season.

While it may not have turned out how the perps wanted, it definitely turned out how they thought it could have. They knew the risks going into this.

Dale

 

[oink]

OK, I posted the original links and the TCPalm update link that contains the actual shooting video but here is that update link again as it appears not everyone saw that one - TCPalm update: Unclear if jewelry store employee will be charged for shooting teen

I have no sympathy or tears for the shot teen, as I'm sure his demise will save the State and future victims lots of money and grief in the future.

However, if you watch the shooting video, FULL SCREEN, you can actually see when the shot was fired, and under what circumstances. Seeing that, I'm left with the overwhelming reaction of *** was the clerk thinking! It actually leaves me POed. My wife or other relatives could have very easily been driving by on US1 when that idiot shot at the car. He did hit what he was aiming at but there was some luck involved with that. It was a unsupported, single-handed shot of probably at least 20 yards, at a moving vehicle, with another passing vehicle in the line of sight, while running or walking fast and pointing directly at a busy highway. And yes the driver immediately crashed. It was just luck that he crashed into the back of a larger truck as opposed to me, my wife or my son on a motorcycle.

I'm not defending the scumbag teens coming up from further South to prey on this county. Not in the least. But the shooter is a effing A.H. Also, it appears to me the robbery was over when the shot was fired. No employee was in any further danger. The only remaining danger was from the robber's vehicle and the idiot shooter. Of course that's just my humble opinion.

The video that follows automatically after the above posted one, is the Sheriff justifying his decision not to charge the shooter.

 

[tlawler]

Seeing that I'm left with the overwhelming reaction of *** was the clerk thinking! It actually leaves me POed. My wife or other relatives could have very easily been driving by on US1 when that idiot shot at the car. He did hit what he was aiming at but it was a unsupported single handed shot.

That's my point too. I don't give a damn about the thief; in fact I hope he dies and saves the state money. If this idiot accidentally shot one of my loved ones while "ending the theft of his precious property," I would go after him figuratively with all guns blazing and end up owning his frigging store.

 

[TTSH]

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?

Let's just say that it helped immensely that the shooter in this case was a retired cop.

 

[tenntex32]

That's my point too. I don't give a damn about the thief; in fact I hope he dies and saves the state money. If this idiot accidentally shot one of my loved ones while "ending the theft of his precious property," I would go after him figuratively with all guns blazing and end up owning his frigging store.

Once again you are "what iffing". We can do this all day. No other innocent person was injured. The facts have clearly stated that in this incident. The shooter stated that he felt his fellow employee's life was in danger due to possibly being ran over with the vehicle or being shot. He clearly stated this in the article. This was a discharge during a felony robbery and attempted fleeing, and from what I read all perfectly legal in Florida.

For those folks in Florida can you please keep us posted of any changes to the story?

Dale

 

[Ziggy2525]

OK, I posted the original links and the TCPalm update link that contains the actual shooting video but here is that update link again as it appears not everyone saw that one - TCPalm update: Unclear if jewelry store employee will be charged for shooting teen

I have no sympathy or tears for the shot teen, as I'm sure his demise will save the State and future victims lots of money and grief in the future.

However, if you watch the shooting video, FULL SCREEN, you can actually see when the shot was fired, and under what circumstances. Seeing that, I'm left with the overwhelming reaction of *** was the clerk thinking! It actually leaves me POed. My wife or other relatives could have very easily been driving by on US1 when that idiot shot at the car. He did hit what he was aiming at but there was some luck involved with that. It was a unsupported, single-handed shot of probably at least 20 yards, at a moving vehicle, with another passing vehicle in the line of sight, while running or walking fast and pointing directly at a busy highway. And yes the driver immediately crashed. It was just luck that he crashed into the back of a larger truck as opposed to me, my wife or my son on a motorcycle.

I'm not defending the scumbag teens coming up from further South to prey on this county. Not in the least. But the shooter is a effing A.H. Also, it appears to me the robbery was over when the shot was fired. No employee was in any further danger. The only remaining danger was from the robber's vehicle and the idiot shooter. Of course that's just my humble opinion.

The video that follows automatically after the above posted one, is the Sheriff justifying his decision not to charge the shooter.

Thanks for the extra info. I missed the TCPalm update with the shooting video. From the video, it looks like it's only 2 seconds from the time the clerk gets bounced until the shot is fired (from the 9 second mark to the 11 second mark). It seems longer than that until you check the clock.

I agree it's pretty stupid to risk your life like the clerk did, but I don't think behaving stupidly forfeits your rights to retrieve property or defend yourself/others. For me it looks like there are two questions. Was the owner justified using deadly force? And did the owner behave recklessly when he did?

After watching the shooting video, I'm on the fence about if he was justified using deadly force. I totally think he was reckless in how he chose to use deadly force shooting with the highway as a backstop.