Florida law allows a merchant to detain in a "reasonable manner for a reasonable length of time". I'm not sure holding at gunpoint and using physical force is what 812.015 (3)(a) has in mind for petty theft. That law provides penalties for resisting in section (6).
(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.
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.
This is a good evaluation by Jon Gutmacher, a Florida Firearms Attorney and Author ...
Lakeland City Commissioner Michael Dunn shoots shoplifter Christobal Lopez
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.
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...