<< <i>shoebox911---By any chance, are you a defense lawyer? >>
Not at all, just someone who tries to look at an issue from all perspectives and then render a judgment.
In this case, we have two parties: an honest proprietor and a scumbag of a thief. While I sympathize with the store owner to a degree, her display cases and stolen property are more than likely fully insured. Her emotional reaction to the incident, however, could have caused much more harm than good. While I detest the actions of the thief, someone who acts in such a bold and reckless manner more than likely will strike again. Eventually, he and his accomplice will be caught and face justice. Fortunately for all concerned, no one was hurt or killed.
<< <i>Fortunately for all concerned, no one was hurt or killed. >>
I hear ya. But some in this discussion wish that the store employee could have been judge, jury and executioner. And if you look at that tape, I think she was living out a fantasy of the wild, wild, west. Yippy, eye yo tye-yay, mf!
She screwed up, but there is a thing I call "The ethics of emergencies" its hard to think clearly when you are in a panic like that and it is understandable what she did.
But, as someone posted before, people like her should not own guns.
<< <i>She screwed up, but there is a thing I call "The ethics of emergencies" its hard to think clearly when you are in a panic like that and it is understandable what she did.
But, as someone posted before, people like her should not own guns. >>
Your words make a good case for continued gun education. Gun control isn't the answer, but promoting the safe handling and use of a firearm is a step in the right direction. Quite honestly, the store owner looks quite awkward and inexperienced as she rushes to the door, crouches, and attempts to fire her weapon. Note how her shooting arm is moving constantly.
She insists she needs a "better gun." I hope she signs up for a gun safety course first.
The best weapon a store owner can have is a shotgun. It's not real dangerous at long range, but extremely dangerous at short range. I was Army Training Cadre for part of my military career, and among the courses I taught was on the Law of Land Warfare. The shotgun was considered so dangerous it was outlawed by the Geneva Conventions.
1) that woman is really lucky that she didn't actually shoot the thief since he was already well outside of the shop when she fired her gun.....she most likely would have been charged with assault/murder....
2) that was one ridiculous looking "medallion" and looked fake...."11 ounces of gold with 3 flawless diamonds"................BS!SeattleSlammer >>
I'd guess you're from Washington State. Laws differ from State to State. Here in Michigan it's legal to kill a fleeing felon.
Ray >>
Ray, I did not know that. I'm actually from Michigan (born and raised in Kalamazoo!). Perhaps that is the case here in Washington, too?......
Your words make a good case for continued gun education. Gun control isn't the answer, but promoting the safe handling and use of a firearm is a step in the right direction. Quite honestly, the store owner looks quite awkward and inexperienced as she rushes to the door, crouches, and attempts to fire her weapon. Note how her shooting arm is moving constantly.
She insists she needs a "better gun." I hope she signs up for a gun safety course first. >>
Blame it on the gun and 20 year old bullets, more like inexperience. Indeed the NRA offers gun safety courses as well as many shooting ranges.
She had absolutely no right to fire a weapon in a public place at someone who is fleeing, and she should be charged to set an example. When I was a kid, a convenience store across the street from where I was standing was robbed, and I nearly got shot by the store owner.
I've seen better secure video's from convenience stores.Once the perp is in the store and commits his act he cannot escape.The store owner calls the cops.Even if the dude destoys the place to escape ...he remains in the store...
I just can't believe the people who would Kill to protect property. (protecting one lives or harm to family is a different story) I'm not for criminals at all but someone doesn't deserve to die just because he steals. And it sure looks like she didn't think before she shot
...it just grieves me so to see businesses and people being victimized. My cousin's wife was shot in the head and thrown from a plane by terrorists in 1985. I was the victim of a home invasion in 1984.
<<..it just grieves me so to see businesses and people being victimized. My cousin's wife was shot in the head and thrown from a plane by terrorists in 1985. I was the victim of a home invasion in 1984. >>
HOLY CRAP MAN!!!!!!!!!!
WOW, and Im very sorry for you and yours. I was the victim of a friends house being invaded by robbers. I was about 19 or so. Scary as hell!
I fully understand your position.
I can see why some would be so ready to take a life in some instances. When victims see others being victimized, its hard not to have a powerful reaction.
Liberals........How much $ will you let a crook steal from you before you take forceful action?
From what I read here, many of you would let the crook run off with whatever he wants.
What happened to this country?
Advanced collector of BREWERIANA. Early beer advertising (beer cans, tap knobs, foam scrapers, trays, tin signs, lithos, paper, etc)....My first love...U.S. COINS!
<< <i>Liberals........How much $ will you let a crook steal from you before you take forceful action?
From what I read here, many of you would let the crook run off with whatever he wants.
What happened to this country? >>
You are SOOOOOOOOOOO missing the point. She fired a weapon into a public parking lot. She could have killed someones' grandmother! >>
And I will submit that you are allowing your personal near-death-experience cloud your judgement. The person who fired the weapon is responsible for what happens as the result of firing a weapon. Not what could have happened.
Said a bit differently, I could have run your grandmother over with my car, so should I stop driving, or should I just be held accountable for my actions when behind the wheel.
The real question, IMO, is how Florida law looks at this issue and not your or my personal feelings.
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
My judgment isn't clouded by anything. She may well get away with no charges (and probably will), however she is still an extremely irresponsible person. Her actions made that very clear. My argument has nothing to do with defending ones' property. It has to do with the fact that one of those bullets could have killed an innocent. If you drive drunk going 100 mph on the freeway, you probably won't die...but you are still highly irresponsible.
<< <i>Liberals........How much $ will you let a crook steal from you before you take forceful action?
From what I read here, many of you would let the crook run off with whatever he wants.
What happened to this country? >>
Perhaps we have evolved from the days of the 19th century Wild West when everyone seemed content to take the law into their own hands? Heaven forbid, huh?
Besides, no one here is stating that an individual does not have the right to defend himself or his property. But in the same manner that law enforcement officials are held accountable for their actions that justify the use of deadly force or a level of force that's proportionate to the situation, so should individual citizens be held accountable for their actions when they make similar decisions.
The video shows the thief and his accomplice, having already succeeded in stealing the medallion, making a clean getaway when the store owner opens fire. If her objective was simply to retrieve her stolen property, property whose value was insured, is simply not worth the risk of serious injury or death to anyone in the car or innocent bystanders by shooting at the car.
What would have been so terribly wrong with getting a good description of the vehicle, perhaps even a license plate number, and then calling the police?
<< <i>My judgment isn't clouded by anything. She may well get away with no charges (and probably will), however she is still an extremely irresponsible person. Her actions made that very clear. My argument has nothing to do with defending ones' property. It has to do with the fact that one of those bullets could have killed an innocent. >>
And I could have run your grandmother over when I got it the car. But I didn't. Thankfully, had I run over your grandmother then I would have been held accountable for my actions.
Just like the store owner. She didn't hurt anyone (and she didn't break any Florida laws, as I understand them), but had she killed an innocent then she would have been responsible for her actions.
Thankfully, we have a right to keep and bear arms. In Florida, we also have the right to stop forcible felonies with deadly force (i.e. shooting a gun). You may not like it -- for fear of all the "innocents who might be killed" -- however our country and state disagrees (and fortunately, IMO).
Respectfully...Mike
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
After reviewing the video the second time, I'm just glad the perpetrator didn't cut himself on shards of glass. That would hurt and might have left his DNA.
As for the person firing the weapon, don't blame her, blame John Wayne and Hollywood.
<< <i>My judgment isn't clouded by anything. She may well get away with no charges (and probably will), however she is still an extremely irresponsible person. Her actions made that very clear. My argument has nothing to do with defending ones' property. It has to do with the fact that one of those bullets could have killed an innocent. >>
And I could have run your grandmother over when I got it the car. But I didn't. Thankfully, had I run over your grandmother then I would have been held accountable for my actions.
Just like the store owner. She didn't hurt anyone (and she didn't break any Florida laws, as I understand them), but had she killed an innocent then she would have been responsible for her actions. >>
We all accept a given risk when we get behind the wheel of a car...but, driving a car isn't generally considered irresponsible.....
<< <i>My judgment isn't clouded by anything. She may well get away with no charges (and probably will), however she is still an extremely irresponsible person. Her actions made that very clear. My argument has nothing to do with defending ones' property. It has to do with the fact that one of those bullets could have killed an innocent. >>
And I could have run your grandmother over when I got it the car. But I didn't. Thankfully, had I run over your grandmother then I would have been held accountable for my actions.
Just like the store owner. She didn't hurt anyone (and she didn't break any Florida laws, as I understand them), but had she killed an innocent then she would have been responsible for her actions. >>
We all accept a given risk when we get behind the wheel of a car...but, driving a car isn't generally considered irresponsible..... >>
Please see my amended comments above.
That said, my response to your quoted words above would be:
"In Florida, it is not considered irresponsible to discharge a firearm when trying to stop a forcible felony, and we accept the risk of discharging a firearm in this situation."
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
<< <i>The person who fired the weapon is responsible for what happens as the result of firing a weapon. Not what could have happened.
Said a bit differently, I could have run your grandmother over with my car, so should I stop driving, or should I just be held accountable for my actions when behind the wheel. >>
I say the two situations are apples and oranges. When someone chooses to drive a car, 99.99% of folks do not seek to seriously injure or kill someone with their cars. However, accidents do happen. But when someone chooses to fire a gun into a public parking lot where innocent people are milling about, the possible resulting of death or serious injury cannot be simply brushed off as "accidental" because the deadly results of her actions were preventable.
I'll reverse your argument to show how irrational it is. You go to a target range to practice shooting and someone steps in front of you and is accidentally shot. Should the state forbid you from ever using a firearm again? What if I recklessly drive my car 20 miles over the speed limit down a crowded downtown street? The police pull me over and write two citations, one for speeding and one for reckless endangerment. I reply, "But officer, I should get only the speeding ticket... I shouldn't receive a ticket for causing something that could have happened, should I?"
<< <i>The person who fired the weapon is responsible for what happens as the result of firing a weapon. Not what could have happened.
Said a bit differently, I could have run your grandmother over with my car, so should I stop driving, or should I just be held accountable for my actions when behind the wheel. >>
I say the two situations are apples and oranges. When someone chooses to drive a car, 99.99% of folks do not seek to seriously injure or kill someone with their cars. However, accidents do happen. But when someone chooses to fire a gun into a public parking lot where innocent people are milling about, the possible resulting of death or serious injury cannot be simply brushed off as "accidental" because the deadly results of her actions were preventable.
I'll reverse your argument to show how irrational it is. You go to a target range to practice shooting and someone steps in front of you and is accidentally shot. Should the state forbid you from ever using a firearm again? What if I recklessly drive my car 20 miles over the speed limit down a crowded downtown street? The police pull me over and write two citations, one for speeding and one for reckless endangerment. I reply, "But officer, I should get only the speeding ticket... I shouldn't receive a ticket for causing something that could have happened, should I?" >>
I agree with you, the examples are apples and oranges.
However, even using the flawed parallel and applying it to our example, the speeding ticket would be the equivalent of a "unlawfully discharging a firearm in public". However -- and this is key -- there is a specific waiver in Florida law when forcible felonies occur. Here is a link to the Florida statue, in case you're interested:
In it, you will note the following (bold emphasis my own):
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.--
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) or subsection (3), any person who knowingly discharges a firearm in any public place or on the right-of-way of any paved public road, highway, or street or whosoever knowingly discharges any firearm over the right-of-way of any paved public road, highway, or street or over any occupied premises is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. This section does not apply to a person lawfully defending life or property or performing official duties requiring the discharge of a firearm or to a person discharging a firearm on public roads or properties expressly approved for hunting by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission or Division of Forestry.
So again, there's nothing wrong with the store owner's actions (as I understand Florida law). This is also evidenced by the fact that no charges were brought against the store owner despite video of the entire incident. You and others may not like it for fear of what "could" happen, but that's the way that it is here in Florida (and Texas is even more liberal!) -- and thankfully so IMO -- you break into my house or place of business and steal my stuff, you're putting your life on the line to do so because I can put a bullet in you to stop it (and by the way I'm a much better shot and have much nicer guns than that lady ).
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
<< <i>"In Florida, it is not considered irresponsible to discharge a firearm when trying to stop a forcible felony, and we accept the risk of discharging a firearm in this situation." >>
I would bet the law you're quoting is far more complex than that. For example, if I see someone attempting to break into my car that's sitting curbside in front of my house, I have the right to spray him with my lawfully owned AK-47? Even if my neighbors are all out working in their gardens, washing their cars, and moms and their baby strollers walking down the sidewalk? In Florida, my actions would be considered responsible because I'm "trying to stop a forcible felony?"
With all due respect, I find that very hard to believe.
<< <i>After reviewing the video the second time, I'm just glad the perpetrator didn't cut himself on shards of glass. That would hurt and might have left his DNA. >>
If he did cut himself, he could sue the shop owner and, if a few of our forum members from the looney left were on the jury, he would be awarded millions of dollars.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>"In Florida, it is not considered irresponsible to discharge a firearm when trying to stop a forcible felony, and we accept the risk of discharging a firearm in this situation." >>
I would bet the law you're quoting is far more complex than that. For example, if I see someone attempting to break into my car that's sitting curbside in front of my house, I have the right to spray him with my lawfully owned AK-47? Even if my neighbors are all out working in their gardens, washing their cars, and moms and their baby strollers walking down the sidewalk? In Florida, my actions would be considered responsible because I'm "trying to stop a forcible felony?"
With all due respect, I find that very hard to believe. >>
As I undersand things, the situation you describe is quite different under Florida law, and you're right it is quite a bit more complex than that.
In the coin store example, it has to do with the person breaking into the business and stoping a forcible felony. When you get to cars, unoccupied cars on the street or property, it becomes a bit more complex. My sense is that you wouldn't have the right to shoot a person from stealing an unoccupied car outside your house, but you would have the right to shoot them if you were inside the car (or your kidnapped daughter were inside the car). Once someone breaks into your house or place of business, the game changes slightly as I understand the law, and in 2005 Florida changed their statutes to include the use of deadly force when you are trying to prevent a forcible felony such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.
Now those issues are very separate from what happens to the bullets that miss -- remember discharging a firearm, even if it is done lawfully, makes you responsible for the bullets, so if you miss when trying to shoot someone lawfully and kill Commoncents' grandmother, you are responsible for that shot.
After reading it and becoming more familiar with Florida law on the topic, I'd be more than happy to debate you (for instance, a particularly interesting discussion could be had in arguing if the fleeing suspect was still committing a forcible felony), but until then I suppose you'll have to doubt my understanding of it as a 30 year resident Floridian and gun owner....Mike
Collector of Large Cents, US Type, and modern pocket change.
As long as we're thinking up "could have happened" scenarios here, if the store owner didn't have the gun in the first place, the robber could have attacked and killed her before leaving the store.
The store employee literally jokes about the incident saying that it was comical. But she was trying to put holes in that guy too. Strange sense of humor there. I don't think this shows that millions of years of evolution has created superior beings.
<< <i>After reading it and becoming more familiar with Florida law on the topic, I'd be more than happy to debate you (for instance, a particularly interesting discussion could be had in arguing if the fleeing suspect was still committing a forcible felony), but until then I suppose you'll have to doubt my understanding of it as a 30 year resident Floridian and gun owner....Mike >>
There isn't any point debating the Florida law as it is written. Whether one agrees with it or not is simply offering one's opinion.
Thanks for providing the specifics of that part of Florida law, but keep in mind that this discussion initially focused on whether or not the store owner exercised good judgment, at least that's the way I tried to frame my argument. I still say that, based on the known facts and what can be observed in the video, she acted irresponsibly and in haste. Her actions in the doorway, in particular, reveal someone who is inexperienced in handling a firearm. Furthermore, and as I have already stated in a previous post, rather than running to get her gun and then firing it from the doorway, she could just as easily have focused on getting a complete description of the vehicle and possibly a license plate number and then immediately call 911. Had she taken this course of action, these criminals might already have been caught.
Finally, and quite frankly, I'm growing weary of the "well, it's not illegal" argument to justify doing something that most common sense folks would deem either irresponsible or unethical behavior. Perhaps it's because I have listened to too many politicians use that excuse for their shenanigans for too many years. But that's another discussion for another day. The bottom line in this case, is this: shooting someone, anyone, with a gun should be the last resort, not the first, irregardless of what the law says.
<< <i>Furthermore, and as I have already stated in a previous post, rather than running to get her gun and then firing it from the doorway, she could just as easily have focused on getting a complete description of the vehicle and possibly a license plate number and then immediately call 911. Had she taken this course of action, these criminals might already have been caught. >>
Heh! She didn't want to methodical, logical, nor thorough. She wanted to be (Bing!-Bing!-Bing!) Ricochet Rabbit!
<< <i>The store employee literally jokes about the incident saying that it was comical. But she was trying to put holes in that guy too. Strange sense of humor there. I don't think this shows that millions of years of evolution has created superior beings. >>
Civility is as much a choice today as trespassing was a crime back then.
<< <i>The store employee literally jokes about the incident saying that it was comical. But she was trying to put holes in that guy too. Strange sense of humor there. I don't think this shows that millions of years of evolution has created superior beings. >>
Killing someone is not comical in anyway, and if you have to do it you better be damned sure you can live with yourself afterwards for having do it. Just ask most people that have ever served in the military and had to kill enemy combatants, it is not something most people enjoy doing, and if you do, you have problems.
<< <i>The store employee literally jokes about the incident saying that it was comical. But she was trying to put holes in that guy too. Strange sense of humor there. I don't think this shows that millions of years of evolution has created superior beings. >>
Killing someone is not comical in anyway, and if you have to do it you better be damned sure you can live with yourself afterwards for having do it. Just ask most people that have ever served in the military and had to kill enemy combatants, it is not something most people enjoy doing, and if you do, you have problems. >>
The store owner would have done society a favor by killing one of those creeps.
Advanced collector of BREWERIANA. Early beer advertising (beer cans, tap knobs, foam scrapers, trays, tin signs, lithos, paper, etc)....My first love...U.S. COINS!
<< <i>Liberals........How much $ will you let a crook steal from you before you take forceful action?
From what I read here, many of you would let the crook run off with whatever he wants.
What happened to this country? >>
Perhaps we have evolved from the days of the 19th century Wild West when everyone seemed content to take the law into their own hands? Heaven forbid, huh?
Besides, no one here is stating that an individual does not have the right to defend himself or his property. But in the same manner that law enforcement officials are held accountable for their actions that justify the use of deadly force or a level of force that's proportionate to the situation, so should individual citizens be held accountable for their actions when they make similar decisions.
The video shows the thief and his accomplice, having already succeeded in stealing the medallion, making a clean getaway when the store owner opens fire. If her objective was simply to retrieve her stolen property, property whose value was insured, is simply not worth the risk of serious injury or death to anyone in the car or innocent bystanders by shooting at the car.
What would have been so terribly wrong with getting a good description of the vehicle, perhaps even a license plate number, and then calling the police? >>
Was it insured?
Advanced collector of BREWERIANA. Early beer advertising (beer cans, tap knobs, foam scrapers, trays, tin signs, lithos, paper, etc)....My first love...U.S. COINS!
I'm comming in late on this one, but after reading: "She should either become trained or dump the pistol before she injures someone in her own family, as many gun owners do."
before she injures someone in her own family, AS MANY GUN OWNERS DO??? That is pure Bull Sht from ignorance. I do take personal offence to that statement.
Should she have shot outside the store? No.
IN MICHIGAN the time to put a bullet in someones head is when you fear for your or anothers safety, and you must feel you have no way to escape for it to be legally justified. If someone breaks into my home the alarm will be screaming. If they continue in with the alarm tripped I will shoot under the circumstances to protect family, and with an average of 2,000 rounds per month practice his odds will not be good. I can live with that, no problem.
My 19 year old daughter was raised wiith numerous guns hidden at home with magazines 3/4 loaded ( I don't want the springs compressed over time which can result in a jam). From the time she could comprehend anything she was taught not to touch them. As a parent I have taught my daughter to be responsible.The possibility of her seriously hurt or killed is highest from an auto accident; FACT. Not because of me being one of MANY GUN OWNERS.
Remember, I'm pullen for ya; we're all in this together.---Red Green---
I would bet the law you're quoting is far more complex than that. For example, if I see someone attempting to break into my car that's sitting curbside in front of my house, I have the right to spray him with my lawfully owned AK-47
In Michigan you may have that right. I'd have to check.
Comments
<< <i>shoebox911---By any chance, are you a defense lawyer?
Not at all, just someone who tries to look at an issue from all perspectives and then render a judgment.
In this case, we have two parties: an honest proprietor and a scumbag of a thief. While I sympathize with the store owner to a degree, her display cases and stolen property are more than likely fully insured. Her emotional reaction to the incident, however, could have caused much more harm than good. While I detest the actions of the thief, someone who acts in such a bold and reckless manner more than likely will strike again. Eventually, he and his accomplice will be caught and face justice. Fortunately for all concerned, no one was hurt or killed.
<< <i>Fortunately for all concerned, no one was hurt or killed. >>
I hear ya. But some in this discussion wish that the store employee could have been judge, jury and executioner.
And if you look at that tape, I think she was living out a fantasy of the wild, wild, west.
Yippy, eye yo tye-yay, mf!
But, as someone posted before, people like her should not own guns.
<< <i>She screwed up, but there is a thing I call "The ethics of emergencies" its hard to think clearly when you are in a panic like that and it is understandable what she did.
But, as someone posted before, people like her should not own guns. >>
Your words make a good case for continued gun education. Gun control isn't the answer, but promoting the safe handling and use of a firearm is a step in the right direction. Quite honestly, the store owner looks quite awkward and inexperienced as she rushes to the door, crouches, and attempts to fire her weapon. Note how her shooting arm is moving constantly.
She insists she needs a "better gun." I hope she signs up for a gun safety course first.
It's not real dangerous at long range, but extremely dangerous at short range.
I was Army Training Cadre for part of my military career, and among the courses I taught was on the Law of Land Warfare.
The shotgun was considered so dangerous it was outlawed by the Geneva Conventions.
Ray
WRONG FORUM.
The stolen property was NOT a US coin...
Pete
Louis Armstrong
1) that woman is really lucky that she didn't actually shoot the thief since he was already well outside of the shop when she fired her gun.....she most likely would have been charged with assault/murder....
2) that was one ridiculous looking "medallion" and looked fake...."11 ounces of gold with 3 flawless diamonds"................BS!SeattleSlammer >>
I'd guess you're from Washington State. Laws differ from State to State.
Here in Michigan it's legal to kill a fleeing felon.
Ray >>
Ray, I did not know that. I'm actually from Michigan (born and raised in Kalamazoo!). Perhaps that is the case here in Washington, too?......
<< <i>
Your words make a good case for continued gun education. Gun control isn't the answer, but promoting the safe handling and use of a firearm is a step in the right direction. Quite honestly, the store owner looks quite awkward and inexperienced as she rushes to the door, crouches, and attempts to fire her weapon. Note how her shooting arm is moving constantly.
She insists she needs a "better gun." I hope she signs up for a gun safety course first. >>
Blame it on the gun and 20 year old bullets, more like inexperience. Indeed the NRA offers gun safety courses as well as many shooting ranges.
I'm not for criminals at all but someone doesn't deserve to die just because he steals.
And it sure looks like she didn't think before she shot
<< <i>No one mentioned the image on the "coin" being that of Jesus Christ? Odd!? Maybe the thief was really just a real religous guy?LOL
Pete >>
In case you didn't know, the Bible is the most often stolen book.
Im no liberal, but laws and comments like thatr could very well turn me into one.
This man stole and deserves to be in jail, sentenced and prosecuted by a court of law.
The heffer that carelessly fired the gun deserves to be in jail too. She put others at risk, and he did not.
He stole, she tried to kill someone. They are both wrong.
I dont care what anyone here says, no life is worth a coin.
<< <i><<Here in Michigan it's legal to kill a fleeing felon.>>
Im no liberal, but laws and comments like thatr could very well turn me into one.
This man stole and deserves to be in jail, sentenced and prosecuted by a court of law.
The heffer that carelessly fired the gun deserves to be in jail too. She put others at risk, and he did not.
He stole, she tried to kill someone. They are both wrong.
I dont care what anyone here says, no life is worth a coin. >>
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
Youre sick man. lol
<< <i>Joe, that could very well work...
Youre sick man. lol >>
...it just grieves me so to see businesses and people being victimized.
My cousin's wife was shot in the head and thrown from a plane by terrorists in 1985. I was the victim of a home invasion in 1984.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
My cousin's wife was shot in the head and thrown from a plane by terrorists in 1985. I was the victim of a home invasion in 1984. >>
HOLY CRAP MAN!!!!!!!!!!
WOW, and Im very sorry for you and yours. I was the victim of a friends house being invaded by robbers. I was about 19 or so. Scary as hell!
I fully understand your position.
I can see why some would be so ready to take a life in some instances. When victims see others being victimized, its hard not to have a powerful reaction.
From what I read here, many of you would let the crook run off with whatever he wants.
What happened to this country?
That goes double in California.
<< <i>Liberals........How much $ will you let a crook steal from you before you take forceful action?
From what I read here, many of you would let the crook run off with whatever he wants.
What happened to this country? >>
You are SOOOOOOOOOOO missing the point. She fired a weapon into a public parking lot. She could have killed someones' grandmother!
<< <i>
<< <i>Liberals........How much $ will you let a crook steal from you before you take forceful action?
From what I read here, many of you would let the crook run off with whatever he wants.
What happened to this country? >>
You are SOOOOOOOOOOO missing the point. She fired a weapon into a public parking lot. She could have killed someones' grandmother! >>
And I will submit that you are allowing your personal near-death-experience cloud your judgement. The person who fired the weapon is responsible for what happens as the result of firing a weapon. Not what could have happened.
Said a bit differently, I could have run your grandmother over with my car, so should I stop driving, or should I just be held accountable for my actions when behind the wheel.
The real question, IMO, is how Florida law looks at this issue and not your or my personal feelings.
<< <i>Liberals........How much $ will you let a crook steal from you before you take forceful action?
From what I read here, many of you would let the crook run off with whatever he wants.
What happened to this country? >>
Perhaps we have evolved from the days of the 19th century Wild West when everyone seemed content to take the law into their own hands? Heaven forbid, huh?
Besides, no one here is stating that an individual does not have the right to defend himself or his property. But in the same manner that law enforcement officials are held accountable for their actions that justify the use of deadly force or a level of force that's proportionate to the situation, so should individual citizens be held accountable for their actions when they make similar decisions.
The video shows the thief and his accomplice, having already succeeded in stealing the medallion, making a clean getaway when the store owner opens fire. If her objective was simply to retrieve her stolen property, property whose value was insured, is simply not worth the risk of serious injury or death to anyone in the car or innocent bystanders by shooting at the car.
What would have been so terribly wrong with getting a good description of the vehicle, perhaps even a license plate number, and then calling the police?
Someone needs to practice with their firearms. It looked like a wild shot to me. Not good at all.
I'm all for knowing the laws in your state. I'm all for instilling maximum fear into criminals.
I also believe that if you are going to fire a gun, you should be familiar with it, and it should be in good working order. Tsk.
<< <i>My judgment isn't clouded by anything. She may well get away with no charges (and probably will), however she is still an extremely irresponsible person. Her actions made that very clear. My argument has nothing to do with defending ones' property. It has to do with the fact that one of those bullets could have killed an innocent. >>
And I could have run your grandmother over when I got it the car. But I didn't. Thankfully, had I run over your grandmother then I would have been held accountable for my actions.
Just like the store owner. She didn't hurt anyone (and she didn't break any Florida laws, as I understand them), but had she killed an innocent then she would have been responsible for her actions.
Thankfully, we have a right to keep and bear arms. In Florida, we also have the right to stop forcible felonies with deadly force (i.e. shooting a gun). You may not like it -- for fear of all the "innocents who might be killed" -- however our country and state disagrees (and fortunately, IMO).
Respectfully...Mike
That would hurt and might have left his DNA.
As for the person firing the weapon, don't blame her, blame John Wayne and Hollywood.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>
<< <i>My judgment isn't clouded by anything. She may well get away with no charges (and probably will), however she is still an extremely irresponsible person. Her actions made that very clear. My argument has nothing to do with defending ones' property. It has to do with the fact that one of those bullets could have killed an innocent. >>
And I could have run your grandmother over when I got it the car. But I didn't. Thankfully, had I run over your grandmother then I would have been held accountable for my actions.
Just like the store owner. She didn't hurt anyone (and she didn't break any Florida laws, as I understand them), but had she killed an innocent then she would have been responsible for her actions. >>
We all accept a given risk when we get behind the wheel of a car...but, driving a car isn't generally considered irresponsible.....
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>My judgment isn't clouded by anything. She may well get away with no charges (and probably will), however she is still an extremely irresponsible person. Her actions made that very clear. My argument has nothing to do with defending ones' property. It has to do with the fact that one of those bullets could have killed an innocent. >>
And I could have run your grandmother over when I got it the car. But I didn't. Thankfully, had I run over your grandmother then I would have been held accountable for my actions.
Just like the store owner. She didn't hurt anyone (and she didn't break any Florida laws, as I understand them), but had she killed an innocent then she would have been responsible for her actions. >>
We all accept a given risk when we get behind the wheel of a car...but, driving a car isn't generally considered irresponsible..... >>
Please see my amended comments above.
That said, my response to your quoted words above would be:
"In Florida, it is not considered irresponsible to discharge a firearm when trying to stop a forcible felony, and we accept the risk of discharging a firearm in this situation."
<< <i>The person who fired the weapon is responsible for what happens as the result of firing a weapon. Not what could have happened.
Said a bit differently, I could have run your grandmother over with my car, so should I stop driving, or should I just be held accountable for my actions when behind the wheel. >>
I say the two situations are apples and oranges. When someone chooses to drive a car, 99.99% of folks do not seek to seriously injure or kill someone with their cars. However, accidents do happen. But when someone chooses to fire a gun into a public parking lot where innocent people are milling about, the possible resulting of death or serious injury cannot be simply brushed off as "accidental" because the deadly results of her actions were preventable.
I'll reverse your argument to show how irrational it is. You go to a target range to practice shooting and someone steps in front of you and is accidentally shot. Should the state forbid you from ever using a firearm again? What if I recklessly drive my car 20 miles over the speed limit down a crowded downtown street? The police pull me over and write two citations, one for speeding and one for reckless endangerment. I reply, "But officer, I should get only the speeding ticket... I shouldn't receive a ticket for causing something that could have happened, should I?"
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>
<< <i>The person who fired the weapon is responsible for what happens as the result of firing a weapon. Not what could have happened.
Said a bit differently, I could have run your grandmother over with my car, so should I stop driving, or should I just be held accountable for my actions when behind the wheel. >>
I say the two situations are apples and oranges. When someone chooses to drive a car, 99.99% of folks do not seek to seriously injure or kill someone with their cars. However, accidents do happen. But when someone chooses to fire a gun into a public parking lot where innocent people are milling about, the possible resulting of death or serious injury cannot be simply brushed off as "accidental" because the deadly results of her actions were preventable.
I'll reverse your argument to show how irrational it is. You go to a target range to practice shooting and someone steps in front of you and is accidentally shot. Should the state forbid you from ever using a firearm again? What if I recklessly drive my car 20 miles over the speed limit down a crowded downtown street? The police pull me over and write two citations, one for speeding and one for reckless endangerment. I reply, "But officer, I should get only the speeding ticket... I shouldn't receive a ticket for causing something that could have happened, should I?" >>
I agree with you, the examples are apples and oranges.
However, even using the flawed parallel and applying it to our example, the speeding ticket would be the equivalent of a "unlawfully discharging a firearm in public". However -- and this is key -- there is a specific waiver in Florida law when forcible felonies occur. Here is a link to the Florida statue, in case you're interested:
http://www.flsenate.gov/STATUTES/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=Ch0776/ch0776.htm
In it, you will note the following (bold emphasis my own):
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.--
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person's will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
The law concerning discharging a firearm in public can be found here: http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0790/SEC15.HTM&Title=->2008->Ch0790->Section 15#0790.15 and the applicable section included below (bold emphasis mine):
790.15 Discharging firearm in public.--
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) or subsection (3), any person who knowingly discharges a firearm in any public place or on the right-of-way of any paved public road, highway, or street or whosoever knowingly discharges any firearm over the right-of-way of any paved public road, highway, or street or over any occupied premises is guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083. This section does not apply to a person lawfully defending life or property or performing official duties requiring the discharge of a firearm or to a person discharging a firearm on public roads or properties expressly approved for hunting by the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission or Division of Forestry.
So again, there's nothing wrong with the store owner's actions (as I understand Florida law). This is also evidenced by the fact that no charges were brought against the store owner despite video of the entire incident. You and others may not like it for fear of what "could" happen, but that's the way that it is here in Florida (and Texas is even more liberal!) -- and thankfully so IMO -- you break into my house or place of business and steal my stuff, you're putting your life on the line to do so because I can put a bullet in you to stop it (and by the way I'm a much better shot and have much nicer guns than that lady
<< <i>"In Florida, it is not considered irresponsible to discharge a firearm when trying to stop a forcible felony, and we accept the risk of discharging a firearm in this situation." >>
I would bet the law you're quoting is far more complex than that. For example, if I see someone attempting to break into my car that's sitting curbside in front of my house, I have the right to spray him with my lawfully owned AK-47? Even if my neighbors are all out working in their gardens, washing their cars, and moms and their baby strollers walking down the sidewalk? In Florida, my actions would be considered responsible because I'm "trying to stop a forcible felony?"
With all due respect, I find that very hard to believe.
Could we just focus on how hideous the medal is?
<< <i>After reviewing the video the second time, I'm just glad the perpetrator didn't cut himself on shards of glass.
That would hurt and might have left his DNA. >>
If he did cut himself, he could sue the shop owner and, if a few of our forum members from the looney left were on the jury, he would be awarded millions of dollars.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
<< <i>
<< <i>"In Florida, it is not considered irresponsible to discharge a firearm when trying to stop a forcible felony, and we accept the risk of discharging a firearm in this situation." >>
I would bet the law you're quoting is far more complex than that. For example, if I see someone attempting to break into my car that's sitting curbside in front of my house, I have the right to spray him with my lawfully owned AK-47? Even if my neighbors are all out working in their gardens, washing their cars, and moms and their baby strollers walking down the sidewalk? In Florida, my actions would be considered responsible because I'm "trying to stop a forcible felony?"
With all due respect, I find that very hard to believe. >>
As I undersand things, the situation you describe is quite different under Florida law, and you're right it is quite a bit more complex than that.
In the coin store example, it has to do with the person breaking into the business and stoping a forcible felony. When you get to cars, unoccupied cars on the street or property, it becomes a bit more complex. My sense is that you wouldn't have the right to shoot a person from stealing an unoccupied car outside your house, but you would have the right to shoot them if you were inside the car (or your kidnapped daughter were inside the car). Once someone breaks into your house or place of business, the game changes slightly as I understand the law, and in 2005 Florida changed their statutes to include the use of deadly force when you are trying to prevent a forcible felony such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.
Now those issues are very separate from what happens to the bullets that miss -- remember discharging a firearm, even if it is done lawfully, makes you responsible for the bullets, so if you miss when trying to shoot someone lawfully and kill Commoncents' grandmother, you are responsible for that shot.
If you are interested in the topic, I would strongly suggest the following book, which discusses all of these issues (and a whole lot more) when it comes to gun ownership in Florida: http://www.amazon.com/Florida-Firearms-Law-Use-Ownership/dp/B001TWZ896/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246410315&sr=8-1
After reading it and becoming more familiar with Florida law on the topic, I'd be more than happy to debate you (for instance, a particularly interesting discussion could be had in arguing if the fleeing suspect was still committing a forcible felony), but until then I suppose you'll have to doubt my understanding of it as a 30 year resident Floridian and gun owner....Mike
"Second, it makes any participant in such a felony criminally liable for any deaths that occur during or in furtherance of that felony."
Felony murder rule
Strange sense of humor there. I don't think this shows that millions of years of evolution has created superior beings.
<< <i>After reading it and becoming more familiar with Florida law on the topic, I'd be more than happy to debate you (for instance, a particularly interesting discussion could be had in arguing if the fleeing suspect was still committing a forcible felony), but until then I suppose you'll have to doubt my understanding of it as a 30 year resident Floridian and gun owner....Mike >>
There isn't any point debating the Florida law as it is written. Whether one agrees with it or not is simply offering one's opinion.
Thanks for providing the specifics of that part of Florida law, but keep in mind that this discussion initially focused on whether or not the store owner exercised good judgment, at least that's the way I tried to frame my argument. I still say that, based on the known facts and what can be observed in the video, she acted irresponsibly and in haste. Her actions in the doorway, in particular, reveal someone who is inexperienced in handling a firearm. Furthermore, and as I have already stated in a previous post, rather than running to get her gun and then firing it from the doorway, she could just as easily have focused on getting a complete description of the vehicle and possibly a license plate number and then immediately call 911. Had she taken this course of action, these criminals might already have been caught.
Finally, and quite frankly, I'm growing weary of the "well, it's not illegal" argument to justify doing something that most common sense folks would deem either irresponsible or unethical behavior. Perhaps it's because I have listened to too many politicians use that excuse for their shenanigans for too many years. But that's another discussion for another day. The bottom line in this case, is this: shooting someone, anyone, with a gun should be the last resort, not the first, irregardless of what the law says.
<< <i>Furthermore, and as I have already stated in a previous post, rather than running to get her gun and then firing it from the doorway, she could just as easily have focused on getting a complete description of the vehicle and possibly a license plate number and then immediately call 911. Had she taken this course of action, these criminals might already have been caught. >>
Heh! She didn't want to methodical, logical, nor thorough. She wanted to be (Bing!-Bing!-Bing!) Ricochet Rabbit!
<< <i>The store employee literally jokes about the incident saying that it was comical. But she was trying to put holes in that guy too.
Strange sense of humor there. I don't think this shows that millions of years of evolution has created superior beings. >>
Civility is as much a choice today as trespassing was a crime back then.
``https://ebay.us/m/KxolR5
<< <i>The store employee literally jokes about the incident saying that it was comical. But she was trying to put holes in that guy too.
Strange sense of humor there. I don't think this shows that millions of years of evolution has created superior beings. >>
Killing someone is not comical in anyway, and if you have to do it you better be damned sure you can live with yourself afterwards for having do it. Just ask most people that have ever served in the military and had to kill enemy combatants, it is not something most people enjoy doing, and if you do, you have problems.
<< <i>
<< <i>The store employee literally jokes about the incident saying that it was comical. But she was trying to put holes in that guy too.
Strange sense of humor there. I don't think this shows that millions of years of evolution has created superior beings. >>
Killing someone is not comical in anyway, and if you have to do it you better be damned sure you can live with yourself afterwards for having do it. Just ask most people that have ever served in the military and had to kill enemy combatants, it is not something most people enjoy doing, and if you do, you have problems. >>
The store owner would have done society a favor by killing one of those creeps.
<< <i>
<< <i>Liberals........How much $ will you let a crook steal from you before you take forceful action?
From what I read here, many of you would let the crook run off with whatever he wants.
What happened to this country? >>
Perhaps we have evolved from the days of the 19th century Wild West when everyone seemed content to take the law into their own hands? Heaven forbid, huh?
Besides, no one here is stating that an individual does not have the right to defend himself or his property. But in the same manner that law enforcement officials are held accountable for their actions that justify the use of deadly force or a level of force that's proportionate to the situation, so should individual citizens be held accountable for their actions when they make similar decisions.
The video shows the thief and his accomplice, having already succeeded in stealing the medallion, making a clean getaway when the store owner opens fire. If her objective was simply to retrieve her stolen property, property whose value was insured, is simply not worth the risk of serious injury or death to anyone in the car or innocent bystanders by shooting at the car.
What would have been so terribly wrong with getting a good description of the vehicle, perhaps even a license plate number, and then calling the police? >>
Was it insured?
"She should either become trained or dump the pistol before she injures someone in her own family, as many gun owners do."
before she injures someone in her own family, AS MANY GUN OWNERS DO??? That is pure Bull Sht from ignorance. I do take personal offence to that statement.
Should she have shot outside the store? No.
IN MICHIGAN the time to put a bullet in someones head is when you fear for your or anothers safety, and you must feel you have no way to escape for it to be legally justified.
If someone breaks into my home the alarm will be screaming. If they continue in with the alarm tripped I will shoot under the circumstances to protect family, and with an average of 2,000 rounds per month practice his odds will not be good. I can live with that, no problem.
My 19 year old daughter was raised wiith numerous guns hidden at home with magazines 3/4 loaded ( I don't want the springs compressed over time which can result in a jam).
From the time she could comprehend anything she was taught not to touch them. As a parent I have taught my daughter to be responsible.The possibility of her seriously hurt or killed is highest from an auto accident; FACT. Not because of me being one of MANY GUN OWNERS.
In Michigan you may have that right. I'd have to check.
Ray