Other State Florida City Commissioner shoots and kills shoplifter trying to exit store with hatchet

[Heyjoe]

This commissioner's life is ruined over what an idiot did

In no way is this guy a victim

 

[nwslopoke]

In no way is this guy a victim

Not making him a victim. Just saying it wasn't worth it, IMHO. Best case scenario, he can say he stopped a petty crime. Now a guy is dead and whatever the commish built is gone.

 

[MrRob96]

Well, looking at Florida law specifically, I found this: "In order to be convicted of second degree murder in Florida it must be shown that the accused acted with a depraved mind and without regard for human life."

Can we call this commissioner's thoughts depraved? I am doubtful of that.

I think that involuntary manslaughter may apply the most. This is what I found on it, from a Florida attorney: " In order to be convicted of involuntary manslaughter in Florida, an offender only has to have acted with culpable negligence (aka a disregard for human life while engaging in wanton or reckless behavior), that resulted in someone else's death."

What is premeditated and deliberate conduct?

I think you could make a case that this murder was premeditated. In the video, it is clear the commissioner is pulling the thief back into the store, or spinning him around once the thief gets to the door. He holds his gun in a firing position for a close range shot to the chest, and the moment he gets the shot, he pulls the trigger.

Because it appears he is flipping the thief around to shoot specifically at the chest, I think it shows he pondered the crime and performed it.

If this was a good shoot, it would have been planning on how to defend himself. In this case it looks like he planned to shoot the thief and wanted 1. the best shot possible and 2. a good direction to show entrance wounds.

 

[bgdawgrr]

I don't know of any state where a person can use deadly force to protect property.

Texas

Texas Penal Code - PENAL § 9.42 | FindLaw

 

[bbbass]

Q: What good would commenting do at this point?
A: None at all.

Q: What harm does commenting on an internet forum do at this point?

A: None at all

I'm certainly not trying to do any good with my comments. It's just human discourse on current events surrounding the subject of firearms. I thought this was a firearms forum???

"Beware the man obviously looking to do you some good!"

 

[Flymph]

hatchet to a gun fight...

 

[bbbass]

hatchet to a gun fight...

What are you doing up??

I'm going back to bed right now... finally got sleepy again... musta been from reading your comment.

 

[Jonnyuma]

Without studying the nuances of FL SYG law with regards to defense of property, if the DA really wants a conviction, something along the lines of Negligent Homocide would probably get him there.

If there's no SD claim to be made (I think that knee-jerk lawyer-line will change), he's going to have to go with "it was an accident... in the struggle the gun just went off" as a defense and Lord help the commish if that Glock's been modified.

This will be used to batter SYG and Castle Doctrine statutes in every state that has them.

 

[edzz]

from the article,
"Dunn stopped him and asked if he was going to pay for the item, then a confrontation ensued. Dunn is a co-owner of the store."

From what I'm reading in these comments many people believe that a person should be unhampered in their attempt to remove property from a store.
The shooter was acting in his role in theft prevention.
If you are seen attempting to steal from a department do you not expect to be confronted by the stores security personnel?
Many comments have indicated that the shooter was sticking his nose into something that he had no interest in, WTF he is an owner of the store.
Are we just looking at the video and missing pesky little facts? Is he guilty of a crime for protecting own his property?
I'll wait for the real courts to decide, I suspect the court may become privy to more information than is being released by the media.

 

[nwslopoke]

If you are indicating that more information is available now, that is a true statement. Previous comments were based on previous information. They also weren't legally binding. Just opinions.

 

[Mikej]

from the article,
"Dunn stopped him and asked if he was going to pay for the item, then a confrontation ensued. Dunn is a co-owner of the store."

From what I'm reading in these comments many people believe that a person should be unhampered in their attempt to remove property from a store.
The shooter was acting in his role in theft prevention.
If you are seen attempting to steal from a department do you not expect to be confronted by the stores security personnel?
Many comments have indicated that the shooter was sticking his nose into something that he had no interest in, WTF he is an owner of the store.
Are we just looking at the video and missing pesky little facts? Is he guilty of a crime for protecting own his property?
I'll wait for the real courts to decide, I suspect the court may become privy to more information than is being released by the media.

In a LOT of retail stores these days shop lifters are completely and totally allowed to leave with what ever they can carry, without paying. It's against company policy to detain, or question in any way a person leaving the store with product not paid for. Stores and shops, I personally believe especially those corporate owned outlets, will fire employees for doing anything to interfere with scum thieves when leaving the store. Granted this situation is different from that, but the mentality of the scum thieves themselves has realized they have freedom to steal when and where they want, usually not facing any barriers.

 

[bbbass]

From what I'm reading in these comments many people believe that a person should be unhampered in their attempt to remove property from a store.
The shooter was acting in his role in theft prevention.
If you are seen attempting to steal from a department do you not expect to be confronted by the stores security personnel?

I would expect that, but I believe as above that stores are generally letting thieves go, with maybe once in awhile a call to the PoPo.

Confront yes. Armed, no. Prevention of theft alone w/o other threats is not a legal basis to shoot someone in almost every state in the union. IMO, killing somebody over minor property is obscene. That said, if the guy did have that hatchet in his hand, I can see why he was confronted at gunpoint. But the vid does not show the guy brandishing that weapon. Maybe he did out of camera range. But based on the info available when most of the comments were made, it didn't look like there was a SYG basis for the killing.

I'm not gonna wait for the real courts to decide... I'm going to voice my opinion here and everywhere else I want to, because it makes no difference. My opinion will not affect the outcome one bit.

 

[Jonnyuma]

From what I'm reading in these comments many people believe that a person should be unhampered in their attempt to remove property from a store

I'm reading the same posts you are and I didn't get that impression at all.

 

[MrRob96]

The shooter was acting in his role in theft prevention.

Lol

He's better off sticking with the accidental discharge defense.

With a motive to protect his property rather than himself, there's even less legal basis for his defense in FL, apparently.

Unless there is a law about owning a store and being allowed to murder petty thieves.

 

[justcuz]

Sorry use of deadly force against verbal assault or verbal threats is also not allowed in the majority of states.

I do not need to listen to anything to see the owner grappling with the victim as the owner tries to pull the victim up from the floor as the victim tries to flee for his life.

I do not need to listen to see the owner shoot the victim three times in the left side with the victim's back turned away from the owner struggling to get away out the door.

I surely do not need to hear the owner utter any type of 'good riddance' under his breath as he watches the victim breath his last breath(s) and twitches on the ground dying..so perhaps it is good for all concerned there is no sound.

 

[etrain16]

In a LOT of retail stores these days shop lifters are completely and totally allowed to leave with what ever they can carry, without paying. It's against company policy to detain, or question in any way a person leaving the store with product not paid for. Stores and shops, I personally believe especially those corporate owned outlets, will fire employees for doing anything to interfere with scum thieves when leaving the store. Granted this situation is different from that, but the mentality of the scum thieves themselves has realized they have freedom to steal when and where they want, usually not facing any barriers.

When I worked at Fred Meyer years ago, we were specifically told we were never to try and physically detain a suspected shoplifter. We could confront them, but not detain them. The only ones that could detain them were security and even they were very limited in what they can do. Way too much liability for the store for potentially assaulting someone over the loss of some product.

 

[Mikej]

Way too much liability for the store for potentially assaulting someone over the loss of some product.

It's at the point of ridiculous now. It's no longer just "Some" product. Albertson's and Fred Meyer have both closed stores citing pilferage as a major factor in the decision. Hundreds of $$ of product walk out on a daily basis, and the corporations just jack the price to compensate. The honest, working folk, are the ones getting screwed, from the back AND front, that's for sure!

The store owner in this case was dead wrong. The filthy thief should have had his knee cap relocated to the back instead!

 

[Nick Burkhardt]

 

[No_Regerts]

Sorry use of deadly force against verbal assault or verbal threats is also not allowed in the majority of states.

I do not need to listen to anything to see the owner grappling with the victim as the owner tries to pull the victim up from the floor as the victim tries to flee for his life.

I do not need to listen to see the owner shoot the victim three times in the left side with the victim's back turned away from the owner struggling to get away out the door.

I surely do not need to hear the owner utter any type of 'good riddance' under his breath as he watches the victim breath his last breath(s) and twitches on the ground dying..so perhaps it is good for all concerned there is no sound.

But it matters when identifying intent or pre-attack indicators.

 

[notazombie]

But it matters when identifying intent or pre-attack indicators.

Hey, quit talking like a cop.