Florida city commissioner shoots, kills alleged shoplifter, surveillance video shows

Was this a good shoot?

  • Yes

    Votes: 26 17.2%
  • No

    Votes: 125 82.8%

  • Total voters
    151
The perp having a hatchet was enough for the owner to draw his pistol. Assuming the perp did swing at the owner, or threatened to do so (which not at all clear from the released video), I think it would have been a good shoot in that moment. Once the perp attempts to flee without appearing to attempt to swing at the owner it becomes much tougher to claim self-defense. Has the period of serious threat passed? If so, and that's what it looks like in the released video, then shooting is no longer is self-defense.
IMNSHO..IANAL..YMMV..IRTRTCMMCPFE

I reserve the right to change my mind completely pending further evidence
 
Is the question;
A) Is it a good shoot in my person opinion?
B) Do I believe it's a good shoot under the current FL law?

I'm assuming the OP was asking B. In which case NO it was not. But that's just my opinion.
 
The only chance this would have been justified is if the shooter knew he had the hatchet AND the suspect had the hatchet out in a manner that would allow for attack. Suspect didn't have a weapon, and he was running away. The commissioner lost his cool and then got mad that the thief was getting away. We see this all the time. It was a bad shoot and it gives good gun laws and gun owners a bad name.
 
I'm going with No based strictly on the evidence provided and strictly on law. I don't see where lethal threat occurred. But, the video looks cropped to me, the bottom half of the frame is missing. He could have reached for his waistband on the way out, or assaulted the owner previously. I really don't see where the immediate, inescapable, unavoidable fear of grave harm is. Seems to me he could have just let the guy leave. I reserve the right to change my mind.

Morally, I think thieves should be shot. But if the question is "Is this tard legally screwed based on evidence provided" I gotta say yeah, PMITA jail is probably his fate.
 
I am a licensed Florida firearm instructor, and an NRA certified law enforcement firearm instructor. There are some things to consider first dealing with the use of force continuum, etc. in this case:

1) Private citizens are generally permitted to employ equivalent force in any use of force situation.

2) Civilian law enforcement personnel are permitted to employ one level higher (the one plus rule) level of force in any use of force situation.

3) The use of force continuum for military personnel varies with the particular situation.

4) The common law right to make a citizen's arrest exists in one form or another in every state of the Union. This was reaffirmed in Massachusetts in recent years when a highway patrolman from Massachusetts pursued an individual into NH to make an arrest. The MA court recognized it as a "citizen's arrest".

5) The store owner had a right to make a citizen's arrest to prevent a shoplifter from leaving his store with stolen merchandise.

6) The shoplifter was armed with a deadly weapon. The stolen hatchet.

7) The store owner certainly would have felt threatened by the armed shoplifter while he was trying to stop the armed shoplifter from leaving his store with stolen merchandise. The armed shoplifter resisted a lawful citizen's arrest.

8) The question is should the store owner have take a chance in detaining the armed shoplifter without the potential use of deadly force? Should he have possibly risked his own safety and possibly his life by confronting this person without using his own weapon of choice? Should he simply allow all shoplifters, especially armed shoplifters, to enter his store and take what they wish to take without paying for it?

9) Every major department store in New England has a loss prevention security department that has the statutory authority to stop shoplifters and detain them for formal arrest by local public law enforcement. These security people are constantly watching security cameras in their stores for shoplifting and other illegal activity. These same private investigators/security personnel are then called to court to testify against the shoplifters facing shoplifting charges. Should these people allow armed shoplifters to leave their retail stores, and only detain unarmed shoplifters? Should armed shoplifters receive a free pass to enter any public or private premises, steal what they wish, and leave without any type of confrontation?

10) Years ago, the Massachusetts "unrestricted" LTC would list on the reason line "protection of life and property". As our society became more "politically correct" the "and property" was generally deleted from the reason line, and only "protection of life" was listed as a legitimate reason. Where do we draw the line when it comes to accommodating aggressive criminal behavior? Should any criminal that is armed be given a free pass to do whatever they wish to do in our society because arguments such as "was it worth killing someone for a $20 hatchet?" There really is more to this shooting incident than the value of a hatchet at an army navy store. What if the now dead shoplifter had stolen a rare military knife or sword worth thousands of dollars? Would the value of a stolen (potential) weapon of one type or another make a difference when it comes to the generally accepted use of force continuum?

If I were serving on a jury for a case like this I would vote not guilty based on the fact that the shoplifter possessed a potentially deadly weapon that he stole from the store owner, and the fact that he resisted a lawful citizen's arrest, which would have likely escalated to a deadly force situation as the store owner was exercising his right to make a citizen's arrest at his own store.

If you don't want to get shot or incur potentially life threatening injuries and wounds, don't steal, rob, threaten, assault, commit battery on, etc. other people. Live and let live, and try and obey the basic laws of polite society. Why should lawfully armed citizens subject themselves to life threatening situations when they are not initiating a deadly force confrontation?
 
9. Every department store in New England has a loss prevention security department that has the statutory authority to stop shoplifters and detain them for formal arrest by local public law enforcement. These security people are constantly watching security cameras in their stores for shoplifting and other illegal activity. These same private investigators/security personnel are then called to court to testify against the shoplifters facing shoplifting charges. Should these people allow armed shoplifters to leave their retail stores, and only detain unarmed shoplifters? Should armed shoplifters receive a free pass to enter any public or private premises, steal what they wish, and leave without any type of confrontation?

Having 5-6 years experience within loss prevention in MA/RI, I can tell you the common policy is that if an individual has committed an act of shoplifting, upon your approach to question and/or detain the suspect, if it becomes known to you the suspect is in possession of a weapon or presents a weapon, you are required to let the suspect go. You are not allowed to engage the suspect.

The reason for this is for your safety and the safety of others around you. Secondly, this is because the value of whatever merchandise being stolen doesn't justify the risk of injury or death of anyone involved, including the suspect.

With that said, the answer to your question, "Should these people allow armed shoplifters to leave their retail stores, and only detain unarmed shoplifters?" is "Yes".
 
Having 5-6 years experience within loss prevention in MA/RI, I can tell you the common policy is that if an individual has committed an act of shoplifting, upon your approach to question and/or detain the suspect, if it becomes known to you the suspect is in possession of a weapon or presents a weapon, you are required to let the suspect go. You are not allowed to engage the suspect.

The reason for this is for your safety and the safety of others around you. Secondly, this is because the value of whatever merchandise being stolen doesn't justify the risk of injury or death of anyone involved, including the suspect.

With that said, the answer to your question, "Should these people allow armed shoplifters to leave their retail stores, and only detain unarmed shoplifters?" is "Yes".

Corporate policies and New England laws are probably not the best source materials if you're looking for good sense.
 
Personally - not worth my aggravation. Let the local agency deal with it, recover the fruits of the crime, and own all of the hassle. They can charge him for the shoplifting, potentially armed robbery (throwing that out there just for thought - I obviously don’t know f-all about FL laws, but if he did in fact threaten the owner with that hatchet - now it’s not just the fruit of a crime, but an instrumentality). Court can then tell him not to do it again and kick him loose. Trespass warning so they can rinse and repeat. Zero legal fees, no name and face all over the news, no howling moon bats or armchair investigators. I’m at a point in my life where I prefer to avoid hassle.

So IF the full, unedited video shows he has a deadly weapon, opportunity to use it (If it’s in hand he has unrestricted access and is well within the effective range of an edged weapon), and his actions demonstrated he intended to employ it, all in furtherance of a felony? (Again, I’m making an assumption here for the sake of discussion - but armed robbery is probably a felony in FL) I think he’ll come out without charges, but owing a lawyer a lot of money and drawing the ire of moonbats and armchair investigators that “believe in self defense, BUT...”


Pulling some of that out of my ass, but I like to look at things like this from as many different FACTUAL angles as possible, and not factor in the feels (such as feeling like I’d rather let someone else own the hassle of dealing with an armed robber). Maybe this wasn’t simple shoplifting - depending on what actually went down -and we’re being drunk toddler Democrat level stupid if we take the media reporting at face value - this could have been armed robbery.

Just a thought.
 
I'm ok with it but I'm ok in principle with shooting thieves. I think he's totally screwed legally and practically though.

This. But if the perp had taken a swing with the hatchet that was not shown, it could change everything. There is also no audio. For all we know, the perp told the shop owner to let him go or he would bury the hatchet... in his skull.
 
This. But if the perp had taken a swing with the hatchet that was not shown, it could change everything. There is also no audio. For all we know, the perp told the shop owner to let him go or he would bury the hatchet... in his skull.
True. We can only base our opinions on what we see. Speculation on what we don't see or hear is infinite, and could change everything.
 
Put a blue uniform and cap on the store owner and it's justified. And I know why we are seeing the cropped version but release the full tape.

But like I said upstream the court of public opinion has this guy hanging from a pole.
 
Unless the store owner can show that Lopez was about to hit him with the hatchet he's screwed. Plus it looks like Lopez was outside the store when shot.
Cop: I was in fear for my life
DA: You're right, no charges will be filed.

So, cops can use this excuse, but we can't? F**k cops, then.

That said, no way is this a justifiable shooting. If the thief had turned and swung the hatchet, sure. But from what I can see he was just trying to get away. The shop owner wasn't (shouldn't have been) in fear for his life. As such, bad shoot.
Pure speculation. Are you trying to say that you know the thief's motive? Are you also saying that you know, for a fact, and without a shadow of a doubt, that the owner wasn't in fear for his life?

Are you a lawyer that specializes in defending cops?
 
What was he going to do with that hatchet?
May have saved some life or limb offing that turd.

If the store owner needs to mount a defense,
they ought to be scouring local crime reports for muggings by the decedent.

Maybe the shoplifter left a string of armed robberies in his wake,
and got so stabby during his last one that he left his knife buried in a victim.
Hence, decided to kick it up a notch while "shopping" for a replacement blade.

Alternately, maybe the perp simply wanted something for self-defense in a local homeless camp;
where a knife might be considered an offensive weapon but a hatchet is arguably jes' camping gear.

Of course one would want to rule out the possibility that
local police were mounting a hatchet buy-back program...


BTW, this thread would be a lot more studip
if the guy had shoplifted a canteen or poncho.

Then again, one might hope the guy wouldn't have been ventilated if
he had been trying to make off with something more innocuous.
 
It is important to note that states like MA and RI do not have stand your ground laws, and they have more restrictive firearm laws. They also have higher crime rates than say states like ME, VT, and NH, which have stand your ground laws of one sort or another, and less restrictive firearm laws.

It is also important to note that all public law enforcement personnel, sworn or unsworn, are defined as civilians, just as all private citizens are. In fact, the only non-civilians in our constitutional republic are full time military personnel. However, sworn public law enforcement personnel are allowed to use one level higher force in any situation they may find themselves in while performing their duties as public law enforcement officers, unlike private citizens, which are permitted to use only equivalent levels of force. There is however the concept of disparity of force. If for example, an unarmed 6'5" tall man weighing 300 lbs. assaults an armed woman that is 5'2" tall and weighs 99 lbs., the woman in this scenario is allowed to use deadly force to protect herself. Another example is if an unarmed 10th dan, black belt, martial artist assaults the average sized man on the street that is armed, this average sized man can use deadly force to protect himself. If a 20 year old unarmed man assaults an armed elderly person, the armed elderly person is allowed to use deadly force. These are typical scenarios that involve disparity of force issues.

If the thief in the case in question had stolen a pair of gloves instead of a hatchet, and the store owner had still shot him dead, then the store owner would have exceeded the use of equivalent force level, as the thief would have been considered unarmed.

This discussion is an example of why shooting incidents need to be investigated by impartial individuals. If after an impartial investigation is performed it is determined by applying statutory, common law, and regulatory standards that there is prima facie evidence to warrant a trial in this particular shooting incident, then this person should be tried in front of an impartial jury made up of people that he considers his peers. Such a trial should be in front of an impartial judge that knows the law in the greatest detail.

Again, if you don't wish to be shot, don't rob, assault, commit battery on, insult, disrespect, etc. other law abiding citizens. Obey the basic laws and common etiquette and practices of civilized society. If you behave like a mad dog instead of like a civilized man, expect to eventually be injured or killed by someone that is not going to run away.

One final comment about the thief in this case. Aside from the fact that he was a convicted felon, and a homeless person, is that he could have obtained a variety of social services, food stamps, homeless person shelter, etc., etc. if he so desired. He did not have to resort to stealing anything from anyone. The majority of people that find themselves homeless for one reason or another that do not seek out and take advantage of the available homeless shelters, and other social services is because they do not want to follow the rules and regulations that go with these social services. For example, if you are living in a homeless shelter you are not permitted to abuse alcohol and drugs, you are also not permitted to rape, assault, commit battery on other people, etc. People that refuse these social services are generally intent on continuing their unlawful and socially unacceptable behavior. This particular convicted felon did not need to steal a hatchet from the local army navy store in order to survive as a homeless person. Also, there are basic jobs available to pretty much anyone that can breath on a mirror to prove they are alive. While working at a MacDonalds cleaning out the garbage may not be my idea of the ideal career move, I would take such a job to have money in my pocket while I was living out of a homeless shelter, if I all of a sudden became a homeless person. I would not be robbing the local army navy store to survive to support a drug habit, or obtain a weapon in the form of a hatchet for criminal purposes, etc. There are homeless people that "bootstrap" themselves back into society, and there are convicted felons that reform and go on to become useful members of society. Not too long ago, one of the former presidents of Smith and Wesson had been found to have been convicted of I believe armed bank robbery in his younger days. He obviously reformed and went on to be the president of a major internationally known firearms manufacturer. Although, unfortunately for him, our current laws concerning licensed firearm manufacturers do not permit convicted armed robbers to work in the position of president. He resigned his position once he was outed as a former convicted bank robber felon.
 
Last edited:
Lol, all this hemming and hawing.

The reality is, legally, on paper law this guy MIGHT have a bad case legally. But if the axe was still in his hand? probably much easier.

But that said, morally, should anyone give a shit about the thief losing his life? Nope. Particularly not when you steal something that can be used as a weapon
from somebody, etc. He forfeited his life when he did that.

This hemming and hawing like this guy was a minor that stole a 50 cent candy bar or a loaf of bread is absurd.

-Mike
 
Having 5-6 years experience within loss prevention in MA/RI, I can tell you the common policy is that if an individual has committed an act of shoplifting, upon your approach to question and/or detain the suspect, if it becomes known to you the suspect is in possession of a weapon or presents a weapon, you are required to let the suspect go. You are not allowed to engage the suspect.

The reason for this is for your safety and the safety of others around you. Secondly, this is because the value of whatever merchandise being stolen doesn't justify the risk of injury or death of anyone involved, including the suspect.

No, that's pure bullshit, the REAL reason for ALL of it is to reduce the perceived liability of the corporation.

It's cheaper to the ConHugeCo to write off the loss of the item than even a cheap settlement is arising from some unintended consequence of stopping the perpetrator. They could care less if you die or anything like
that.

Like let's say Joe Shitbird steals a TV from the local Target. A Target staffer takes a cart and tries to intercept joe shitbird with it. The Cart stops joe shitbird, but then he falls over and lands with the TV and knocks over 78 year old mary hairnet who then cracks her hip on the floor. Now Target is getting sued by mary hairnet and that costs a lot more than Joe Shitbird stealing the TV set would have. It's all based on perception of liability.

That's all the LP ConHugeCo things care about. If it was cheaper and less financially risky, somehow, for the ConHugeCo, somehow, to have you throw a grenade at the perpetrator, they would want you to do that. They don't care about you or your safety. [laugh]

-Mike
 
First , I would like to see the raw video before the news station edited the living crap out of it to make it look like what they wanted it to look like.
The guy did in fact have the hatchet in his hand when he got popped.
Had he just taken a swing at the store owner with it before the video we saw started?
Jury is still out with me.
 
No, that's pure bullshit, the REAL reason for ALL of it is to reduce the perceived liability of the corporation.

Of course it's to reduce the chance of liability to the corporation, but it doesn't change the fact it's the standing policy of many department stores is to let the suspect go if a weapon is observed or brandished.
 
Back
Top Bottom