EJFudd
NES Member
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Florida city commissioner shoots, kills alleged shoplifter, surveillance video shows
- Thread starter commodon
- Start date
![[thumbsup]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/044.gif "Thumbs Up [thumbsup]")
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,531
- Likes
- 33,562
My logic as a juror would be:
1. Did the shopkeep use perfect judgment?
2. If not, whose actions put him in the situation where imperfect judgment would result in a tragedy?
And then assign blame as appropriate given the above.
In MA, no person with an LTC would be empaneled on the jury for such a case.
1. Did the shopkeep use perfect judgment?
2. If not, whose actions put him in the situation where imperfect judgment would result in a tragedy?
And then assign blame as appropriate given the above.
In MA, no person with an LTC would be empaneled on the jury for such a case.
You're showing a regional bias. In MA gun stores are just that, gun stores. But elsewhere they often sell other things. Army/Navy stores, pawn shops, could also be gun stores. So I left the possibility open.
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
Why no one with an LTC ?
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2010
- Messages
- 5,780
- Likes
- 3,068
Food for thought here, and I AM pulling this out of my ass - but that hatchet, to my simple mind, at least opens the door to this being an armed robbery, not a simple shoplifting. I don't know f-all about FL laws, I don't know the elements of either offense (or crime), I don't know how jurors are instructed there. I just like to look at as many angles and see as many possibilities and contingencies as I can find. (I'm middle aged with a destroyed back, neck, shoulder, and knees from LoD thrashings and a bit fat, so my brain is the easiest thing for me to exercise.)
My mere suspicion is that DA was under heavy political pressure, so he charged it - because guns!, homeless!, self defense!, IMMINENT ELECTIONS! And the feels! Oh, the feelings all the aspects of the event elicit! The facts might contradict, but by then it's not on him anymore. He satisfied the feels element of the offense of "seeking, or seeking to hold, political office in or about an electoral area in the year of batshit craziness, 2018 A.D." I think he (or she, I have no idea) knows that it won't go far. Dude's life will be ruined before he's acquitted, but small price to pay for re-election and/or the safe maintenance of political cover and support.
ETA: I don't personally agree with the shopowner - I don't know what happened beyond what the media has edited for us to believe, but in a similar situation to what the propagandists gave us, I would HOPE I would back off and let local agencies deal with all the attendant BS. I can't say I would because I can't say for sure what the situation really was (nor can any of you), and I've never been in whatever that situation was to find out what I'd really do. I don't feel bad an armed robber got shot, but I do feel like that shopkeepers life would be a lot simpler right now if he drew and stepped back and let locals handle it if the dude decided to flee. But we DO NOT know what actually went down, and anyone that takes ANY media report at face value is a fu%^ing idiot, and probably has velcro on all their shoes and padding on the corners of their coffee table.
This is a good evaluation by Jon Gutmacher, a Florida Firearms Attorney and Author of the book, Florida Firearms, Law, Use and Ownership.
I have read the book cover to cover, very good.
Jon's evaluation;
Lakeland City Commissioner Michael Dunn shoots shoplifter Christobal Lopez
I have read the book cover to cover, very good.
Jon's evaluation;
Lakeland City Commissioner Michael Dunn shoots shoplifter Christobal Lopez
Nick Fury
NES Member
I have no idea what you guys are arguing about but I’m pretty sure the firearms manufacturers stickers were there because its a gun shop.
I don't mind the trolling but now you're just getting personal, stop being an AH, and we can continue to debate the facts.
BTW it turns out this was, also, a gun store. I don't think it matters legally, but to me, someone who is willing to rob a gun store, where staff are certainly armed, can be considered more dangerous.
Jason Flare
NES Member
Probably the same reason I'll never sit on a jury.
The police did conduct an investigation. The indictment was handed down by a grand jury.
They weren't alone in the store. There was at least the person behind the counter who checked out Lopez's father. This article cites a "witness" whose name was redacted:
Police: Shoplifter did not verbally, physically threaten Lakeland commissioner before fatal shooting
This from the article is also telling:
Last edited:
So the hatchet was in the thiefs hand the whole time (after it fell out of his pants) and he intended to leave, after making it look like he was going to pay... And the thief moving towards the owner from the register, stolen hatchet in hand, that's not a threatening movement? If it's not threatening, why did the owner back up and draw his firearm?
Seems strange the homeless guy out shopping with his father (where does his father live?), then leaving his father holding the bag in the store as he tries to run away. Who's to say if the store owner doesn't grab him, the thief doesn't turn around and start hacking; you've got an armed thief in front of you, now your back is to - assumedly - his partner. Do you lock the door behind the thief, locking everybody in? You know he was with the other guy (the father) who's in the store with you now - is he armed? What's he going to do?
But no; the guy would NEVER hurt you, no need to be afraid of that. He only just robbed you and ran towards you with a weapon in his hand.
Last edited:
It looks like Lopez is also moving away from Dunn at the instant Dunn seems to take a step back. Possibly it was much like what happened at the end, with Dunn pulling on Lopez and Lopez breaking free of his grip. If that was when he drew, he might be trained to create distance when drawing for all we know. I prefer to move to the side, since I don't have eyes in the back of my head. But maybe he likes to step back. Eyewitnesses reported no swing, no brandishing of the hatchet by Lopez. We don't have the entire transcript of Dunn's interview, but by his own admission, he shot Lopez because he was stealing the hatchet. So clearly we don't need to suppose that Dunn drew because he felt threatened. If he shot him because he was stealing a hatchet, why wouldn't he draw because he decided he might ultimately need to shoot him because he was stealing a hatchet?
The same media which handed this article to you is the media which felt the need to filter out the parts where the guy clearly had the hatchet in his hand and claim it was indeterminable, edited out the bit where the hatchet was clearly laying on the ground after, and of course remove the part of the video where the thief's hand enters the camera's field of view - then the shop owner backs up and draws - then the thief's head enters field of view - then he goes for the door. They've taken part of a sentence from him entirely without context; would YOU trust the media to accurately portray your statements after a shoot in which you were involved? Would you feel threatened by a thief coming towards you hatchet in hand?
Who are the eye witnesses? The thief's father? An employee? What were their vantage points? Is simply moving towards someone you're robbing, weapon in hand, not a threat?
Jason Flare
NES Member
Is it fair to say that most of us would have pulled out CCW in the presence of this guy with a hatchet?
If this is true, how many of us have said, “I will only pull my gun when I intend to use it.”
Maybe our opinion is that Dunn would have been better served to have shot the guy in the store?
If this is true, how many of us have said, “I will only pull my gun when I intend to use it.”
Maybe our opinion is that Dunn would have been better served to have shot the guy in the store?
In MA, people with an LTC are (generally) too knowledgeable about firearms and shooting and would be more likely to be able to see through any BS the Prosecutor would employ.
The first duty of a trial lawyer (prosecution or defense) is to keep anyone who might be hostile to their case off the jury.
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
Sounds criminal to me.
Really?
Think about it.
If you were on trial, possibly for your life, for something which many people think should not have been a criminal act, would you want a jury comprised of people where were opposed to your belief?
Read, think, evaluate, consider the value of what happened.
Judge orders Lakeland City Commissioner Michael Dunn held without bond on 2nd-degree murder charges
On the bright side, shoplifting in Lakeland has dropped to an historic low.
And if Clint Eastwood shot toad for trying to steal the Gran Torino,
We wouldn’t have an excellent film.
Judge orders Lakeland City Commissioner Michael Dunn held without bond on 2nd-degree murder charges
On the bright side, shoplifting in Lakeland has dropped to an historic low.
And if Clint Eastwood shot toad for trying to steal the Gran Torino,
We wouldn’t have an excellent film.
Last edited:
Chevy 2 65
NES Member
You misunderstood me or I miss spoke. There is no reason in the world not to have people with LTC on the jury
AHM
NES Member
(Off topic, but...).
Outstanding. I have repeatedly searched for law surrounding resistance to (false) detention by a store owner under shopkeeper's privilege.
Because while statutes generally grant shopkeepers the privilege to try to detain shoplifters, when I read the laws, it just hasn't jumped out and bitten me that the accused must accept detention if they know they haven't stolen anything.
(A state could pass a law allowing people to try to grab a handful of moondust by jumping really, really hard while the moon is overhead; but that doesn't mean they are necessarily going to succeed).
The 2018 Florida Statutes
Title XLVI Chapter 812
CRIMES THEFT, ROBBERY, AND RELATED CRIMES
812.015 Retail and farm theft; transit fare evasion; mandatory fine; alternative punishment; detention and arrest; exemption from liability for false arrest; resisting arrest; penalties.—
...
(6) An individual who, while committing or after committing theft of property, transit fare evasion, or trespass, resists the reasonable effort of a law enforcement officer, merchant, merchant’s employee, farmer, or a transit agency’s employee or agent to recover the property or cause the individual to pay the proper transit fare or vacate the transit facility which the law enforcement officer, merchant, merchant’s employee, farmer, or a transit agency’s employee or agent had probable cause to believe the individual had concealed or removed from its place of display or elsewhere or perpetrated a transit fare evasion or trespass commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083, unless the individual did not know, or did not have reason to know, that the person seeking to recover the property was a law enforcement officer, merchant, merchant’s employee, farmer, or a transit agency’s employee or agent. For purposes of this section the charge of theft and the charge of resisting may be tried concurrently.
Title XLVI Chapter 812
CRIMES THEFT, ROBBERY, AND RELATED CRIMES
812.015 Retail and farm theft; transit fare evasion; mandatory fine; alternative punishment; detention and arrest; exemption from liability for false arrest; resisting arrest; penalties.—
...
(6) An individual who, while committing or after committing theft of property, transit fare evasion, or trespass, resists the reasonable effort of a law enforcement officer, merchant, merchant’s employee, farmer, or a transit agency’s employee or agent to recover the property or cause the individual to pay the proper transit fare or vacate the transit facility which the law enforcement officer, merchant, merchant’s employee, farmer, or a transit agency’s employee or agent had probable cause to believe the individual had concealed or removed from its place of display or elsewhere or perpetrated a transit fare evasion or trespass commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083, unless the individual did not know, or did not have reason to know, that the person seeking to recover the property was a law enforcement officer, merchant, merchant’s employee, farmer, or a transit agency’s employee or agent. For purposes of this section the charge of theft and the charge of resisting may be tried concurrently.
So, in Florida it's a misdemeanor to decline to be detained if the shopkeeper has probable cause to believe that you've ripped them off. And "probable cause" is a well-defined legal test.
Note his nuance on brandishing in the presence of a trespass/tort less serious than a forcible felony.
The 2018 Florida Statutes
Title XLVI Chapter 776
CRIMES JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
776.031 Use or threatened use of force in defense of property.—
...
(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
Title XLVI Chapter 776
CRIMES JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE
776.031 Use or threatened use of force in defense of property.—
...
(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
Gutmacher opines...
... even if a forcible felony is taking place and it is reasonable and necessary to use deadly force to stop it (not the case here) – you must first “retreat” if you are “engaged in criminal activity”. The pointing of a firearm when not authorized by law will normally be argued as an “aggravated assault”, thus “criminal activity”, and therefore require “retreat” before deadly force can be used – even in cases where deadly force is authorized.
I wonder if Gutmacher can point to an actual defendant losing actual stand-your-ground protection in an actual Florida trial because of brandishing...
I noticed that too. It doesn't make sense. Deadly force is authorized to stop a forcible felony but threatening deadly force is an aggravated assault therefore you must retreat first before using deadly force even though its authorized? Yeah, thats nonsensical.
Either its authorized, and you can use deadly force. Or it's not, and you can't. In this case, sense he wasn't trying to stop a forcible felony, it wasn't authorized. Maybe he was trying to suggest that because the guy shoplifting wasn't a forcible felony, pointing the firearms was not authorized in the first place, so since that wasn't authorized, and was instead "criminal activity", he must now retreat if able, if the guy then does in fact become a threat or begin to commit a forcible felony. I also wonder if there are examples that show people do indeed lose stand your ground protections for this. I also wonder why this author did such a poor job of conveying what you were able to say in a single sentence, assuming that is indeed what he was trying to say.
AHM
NES Member
Frankly, absent actual records that courts have applied that interpretation of the law, my kneejerk is that Gutmacher is blowing smoke. It reminds me of the advice from some "experts" to only CCW the precise stock model of the service weapon used by your local cops, only loaded with precisely the same ammo (and if you asked them, probably maintained with the same brand of lubricant), to preclude prosecutors from claiming to credulous jurors that your gun was extra-killy.
If (if) Gutmacher is blowing smoke, I don't know if it's to gin up business, or just to burnish a reputation as a leet legal theorist.
Mind you, I'm not discounting the distinction made in that Florida statute about when it is permissible to use deadly force as opposed to non-deadly force. I'm just saying that the language smells like the phrasing used in lots of other jurisdictions to deny self-defense as a defense to criminals faced with victims fighting back mid-crime.
Also, if I had to mount a legal defense I'd search all their other laws to see if another one permitted a mode of self-defense covering my case that 776.031 declined to extend in that instance. 776.031 doesn't try to claim it's the only valid way to claim self-defense - just that it's a (new) way as of 2005. There could be other legal avenues to the same result.
Depending on how many security cameras that Army/Navy store had running (and what the dead perp's father saw, or will claim in court that he saw), the shooter may be able to convince a jury that a forcible felony had occurred and thus deadly force was authorized by 776.031. It may be a $100K argument, but he may still get off. Hell, there may even be objective evidence from other camera angles that the perp. made threatening moves with the hatchet 10 seconds earlier.
On the other hand, the shooter ran his mouth Big Time to the cops. In the end he may be hoist on his own petard, even if the case was an objectively bad shoot that could otherwise have been won by a fancy lawyer sowing doubt in the jury.
Do you mean as a Mass LTC holder you'd never be allowed by the courts to sit on a jury in a case involving a firearm ?
Pretty much, one side or the other will vote you off the island.
That's strange from my experience in the Federal Court in Boston I was picked to serve as a juror in an arson case that resulted in an injury to a firefighter, in Lynn IIRC, even though I was a retired FF.
I was brought before the judge and asked if I could be impartial ? Honestly I said yes, as no side brought an objection, so I was impaneled. The guy was one lucky bastard...the first day of trial was Tuesday 9/11/01... Case was dismissed
You do realize the legal implications here for the hundreds of thousands of Massachusetts firearm owners ? Does anyone who is a firearm owner think get a fair trial involving firearms in the Commonwealth ? Do you think in Florida firearm owners would be rejected outright from sitting on this jury ?....interesting
