• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Killed over shoplifting? 'Disturbing' video shows Florida store owner fatally shooting alleged thief

mike2810 said:
Pretty harsh. How about we revoke shoplifter's citizenship and expel them.

I am not going to say the shooting was justified. However with what was presented in the OP the shoplifter had an opportunity to pay for the item or maybe even leave the hatchet in the store. Instead he decided to leave the store with the stolen item. Even after the owner had a gun pointed at him. Not very smart by the shoplifter.
Click to expand...

Red:
I haven't a problem with that; however, it's no longer an option in the specific case here under discussion. Moreover, the shop owner had a variety of recourse options besides fatally shooting a fleeing shoplifter over a, what, a ~$20 hatchet.

I mean, really...What rational reason is there for fatally shooting anyone (or risking that one does so) who's fleeing from oneself and who's only apparent offense against one is the theft of a minor piece of property? Say what you will, but you almost certainly will not convince me there is any rational basis for that sort of response to the noted act.


maslow-hammer.jpg
 
If the guy was fleeing I don’t see it being justified. If the thief was taking off with his life savings or something that would create serious financial hardship for the owner then I would be a lot more understanding and would be a very sympathetic juror. That isn’t the case here.
 
Xelor said:
Red:
when-all-you-have-is-a-hammer2.jpg
Click to expand...

Dude I'm sorry you can't understand that I disagree with you, and feel that trying to mock me is the best path, this proof you are admitting you have nothing to add to the discussion.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
If the guy was fleeing I don’t see it being justified. If the thief was taking off with his life savings or something that would create serious financial hardship for the owner then I would be a lot more understanding and would be a very sympathetic juror. That isn’t the case here.
Click to expand...

I agree, in this case but I don't believe its murder. a lesser type of homicide. That being said, we don't know the record of the thief. while that won't play into the potential charges against the shopkeeper, the shooting might well have been a benefit to society
 
Renae said:
No, you're giving way too much pity to the person that created the situation. I'm not saying the shooting was "JUSTIFIED" but the shooter was in a high stress situation crated by someone thieving... I just can't get my pity needle to move for that.
Click to expand...

Red:
I'm saying not that I pity anyone, as you've errantly assumed I have said/implied. I'm not shy or roundabout in comprehensively expressing my thoughts. Had I felt pity for either of the two parties, I'd have said so. My pity is reserved for sage and rational folks who must suffer such nitwits, ne'er do wells and irrational individuals being our countrymen and neighbors.

I am saying the shooting was unjustified, thus inexcusable.


Blue:
Stress my ass! If that situation qualified for the shop worker as "high stress," he needs more help than Prozac, booze or weed can provide.
  • The shop worker shot another man who was fleeing from him!
  • The thief took an ~$20 hatchet and put it in his belt rather than wielding it balefully.
Sorry, but there's no rational basis for concluding extant be high stress, and most certainly not high stress of the sort that merits shooting the runner, associated with someone's running from oneself. If anything, rational folks construe the fact of another's running away from them as a source of stress abatement, not stress exacerbation.
 
Xelor said:
Red:
I haven't a problem with that; however, it's no longer an option in the specific case here under discussion. Moreover, the shop owner had a variety of recourse options besides fatally shooting a fleeing shoplifter over a, what, a ~$20 hatchet.

I mean, really...What rational reason is there for fatally shooting anyone (or risking that one does so) who's fleeing from oneself and who's only apparent offense against one is the theft of a minor piece of property? Say what you will, but you almost certainly will not convince me there is any rational basis for that sort of response to the noted act.
Click to expand...

The shoplifter up to the point he died had options, now didn't he?

Like I have said I am not saying the shooting was justified. I will say the shoplifter put himself in the situation. The shoplifter had many opportunities to deescalate the situation.
 
Xelor said:
Red:
I'm saying not that I pity anyone, as you've errantly assumed I have said/implied. I'm not shy or roundabout in comprehensively expressing my thoughts. Had I felt pity for either of the two parties, I'd have said so. My pity is reserved for sage and rational folks who must suffer such nitwits, ne'er do wells and irrational individuals being our countrymen and neighbors.

I am saying the shooting was unjustified, thus inexcusable.


Blue:
Stress my ass! If that situation qualified for the shop worker as "high stress," he needs more help than Prozac, booze or weed can provide.
  • The shop worker shot another man who was fleeing from him!
  • The thief took an ~$20 hatchet and put it in his belt rather than wielding it balefully.
Sorry, but there's no rational basis for concluding extant be high stress, and most certainly not high stress of the sort that merits shooting the runner, associated with someone's running from oneself. If anything, rational folks construe the fact of another's running away from them as a source of stress abatement, not stress exacerbation.
Click to expand...

High Stress being someone was stealing, a deadly weapon at that. Yeah that's high stress.
 
Renae said:
Dude I'm sorry you can't understand that I disagree with you, and feel that trying to mock me is the best path, this proof you are admitting you have nothing to add to the discussion.
Click to expand...

I am certain you disagree with me.

I'm puzzled at how and why your internalized my "hammer" remark rather than considering it as applicable to the guy who shot the thief. Every passage I indicated (both my own emboldened comments and the red ones you penned) as pertaining to the "hammer" remark referred to the parties to the theft, yet you somehow conjured that my observation pertained to you. Bizarre....Even looking back at my post, I see nothing that suggests it pertains to you, but obviously you managed to find a way to interpret it thus.....whatever....
 
It does not APPEAR from what we are being shown that the shoplifter was attacking or going for the weapon. That being the case...its hard to call this a legit shooting.
 
Renae said:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/killed-sh...o-shows-florida-store-owner/story?id=58506648

Clean shoot or unjustifiable?

I'm torn, on one hand the guy stole a weapon, and the store owner was probably afraid of being attacked, on the flipside the thief was trying to "get away". Sucks to die for what? A $16 hatchet? However my pity for thieves is very very small...
Click to expand...

Tough one, probably for a judge or jury to decide. How much authority does someone have to stop someone stealing their property? Since he was stealing a weapon and may have tried to use the weapon in a violent manner to get away, its probably legally justified, though unnecessary.

Hopefully a lesson to both sides. Dont rob people as they may shoot you. And think before you shoot others if its worth it.
 
mike2810 said:
The shoplifter up to the point he died had options, now didn't he?

Like I have said I am not saying the shooting was justified. I will say the shoplifter put himself in the situation. The shoplifter had many opportunities to deescalate the situation.
Click to expand...

Yes, the shoplifter was the source of his woes, but that he was doesn't exculpate the shooter from having imprudently and injudiciously responding to the stimuli he encountered.

One can blather on about the thief, but the fact of the matter is that he's been penalized as much as was ever possible. What remains, then, is the matter of the shooter's actions. The store worker overreacted and he is the only person to blame for his having done: nobody forced him to shoot the thief; he and only he irrationally conjured in his mind some sort of ostensibly life-threatening consequence(s) -- presumably accruing from being robbed of a hatchet by a man who, in turn, fled from him -- warranting (in the shooter's mind) fatally shooting a misdemeanant.


Aside:
The Fremen were supreme in that quality the ancients called "spannungsbogen" -- which is the self-imposed delay between desire for a thing and the act of reaching out to grasp that thing.”
-- Frank Herbert, Dune​


The tone of some of the remarks I've seen in this thread is that of "whatever action one takes is 'okay' so long as there was a stimulus giving rise to it." That notion is, AFAIC, absurd.

Can you, or anyone posting here, honestly declare unto themselves novel be the notions of rationality and restraint? Perhaps you can, but I cannot.



​
quote-of-all-manifestations-of-power-restraint-impresses-men-most-thucydides-53-41-73.jpg


​


Therein rests the issue that, given the thief's expiration and our abstract vantage, IMO, most affects this matter:​


  • [*=1]Of what comportment and repute as a polity are we?
Your answer may differ from mine; however, I embrace and strive to be the latter and forbear nothing about the former. Guided and principled thus, I have noting but excoriation and execration for anyone, not just the store worker here noted, whose cognition, ethics and, yes, even impulse enables him to rashly kill a petty thief, and furthermore in the wake of having done, seek to absolve himself.

No. Just plain and simple, no. I see nothing right about such an act and, frankly, I could not live with myself were I to deign devising any way to construe it otherwise. I wasn't raised that way. I don't want to be that way. For better or worse, I will not be so.​
 
Renae said:
High Stress being someone was stealing, a deadly weapon at that. Yeah that's high stress.
Click to expand...

In light of the information, both existential and that made available in rubric article -- the insignificant monetary value of the stolen item, the fact that the misdemeanant had stown the item in his belt and was fleeing -- the assertion above strikes me as your....


IMG_1362-1.jpg


​

....to defend the shooter's rash behavior borne of an inapt assessment of the situation he faced.
 
jdog21 said:
I don't know Florida's laws but I would think stand your ground wouldn't apply since the man was escaping and wasn't trying to hit the store owner to escape.

So I think the question is can you shoot someone to defend the loss of property theft?
Click to expand...

Well there is a round about argument here and it's this...

The shop owner had a legal right to apprehend the thief and recover his property,

however the thief was armed with a deadly weapon

Even if retreating the shop owner still had a right to use force (maybe not deadly force per se, but force) to recover his property from the thief

However the thief was armed with a deadly weapon, and hence if he had attempted to use force to aprehend the thief the thief can retaliate with deadly force

Because of this there was an unacceptably high risk to the shop owner that he would face death or dismemberment if he attempted to recover the hatchet.

THEREFORE he was justified in using deadly force to recover the hatchet as there was no safe option to recover the hatchet without deadly force.

how well this argument works will depend upon the jury. It's a better defense then nothing, I mean it's a defensible case, it can go either way.
 
Xelor said:
In light of the information, both existential and that made available in rubric article -- the insignificant monetary value of the stolen item, the fact that the misdemeanant had stown the item in his belt and was fleeing -- the assertion above strikes me as your....


IMG_1362-1.jpg


​

....to defend the shooter's rash behavior borne of an inapt assessment of the situation he faced.
Click to expand...

Hardly, you're once again showing your concern not for an honest business owner confronted with a thief who stole a potentially deadly weapon and he wa afraid, but rather you're upset a criminal was shot. Ergo, you obviously upset that a criminal was not allowed to have a safe working environment to ply his trade.


You're admitting it in this thread, you want criminals to be allowed to victimize people, you support crime.
 
Xelor said:
In light of the information, both existential and that made available in rubric article -- the insignificant monetary value of the stolen item, the fact that the misdemeanant had stown the item in his belt and was fleeing -- the assertion above strikes me as your....


IMG_1362-1.jpg


​

....to defend the shooter's rash behavior borne of an inapt assessment of the situation he faced.
Click to expand...
"[Lopez] was given that chance, and made a choice not to accept responsibility and wait for law enforcement to come, to have an investigation, so Michael had to do things under split seconds to protect himself, his business and his community,” defense attorney Rusty Franklin said.The Lakeland Police Department said Monday it was still investigating the shooting and the State Attorney’s Office is deciding whether Dunn will face charges in the shooting. State Attorney Brian Haas told FOX13 on Monday the investigation into the incident should be wrapped up by the end of this week.
"Though citizens may have strong feelings about what is depicted, we ask you to remain patient as our department continues to work with the State Attorney's Office to investigate," police said.
Click to expand...
https://www.foxnews.com/us/florida-...s-alleged-shoplifter-surveillance-video-shows
 
EMNofSeattle said:
Well there is a round about argument here and it's this...

The shop owner had a legal right to apprehend the thief and recover his property,

however the thief was armed with a deadly weapon

Even if retreating the shop owner still had a right to use force (maybe not deadly force per se, but force) to recover his property from the thief

However the thief was armed with a deadly weapon, and hence if he had attempted to use force to aprehend the thief the thief can retaliate with deadly force

Because of this there was an unacceptably high risk to the shop owner that he would face death or dismemberment if he attempted to recover the hatchet.

THEREFORE he was justified in using deadly force to recover the hatchet as there was no safe option to recover the hatchet without deadly force.

how well this argument works will depend upon the jury. It's a better defense then nothing, I mean it's a defensible case, it can go either way.
Click to expand...

That all based on the idea that Florida's law says you can protect your property.
 
Renae said:
That's why I don't live in Cali. If I see you robbing me or a neighbor, I can and will put Number 2 buckshot in your ass. Don't steal.
Click to expand...

You didn't actually read the statute, did you?
 
That's the problem with starting ****...the other guy gets to determine how to end it.
 
another ***** gun owner hiding behind his gun and so quick to kill someone
 
jdog21 said:
That all based on the idea that Florida's law says you can protect your property.
Click to expand...

you absolutely can protect your property, just not always with deadly force. unless Florida has repealed by statute, there's a common law right to apprehend someone in the commission of a crime, again just not always (but in certain cases) with deadly force.
 
Renae said:
In Texas you can defend property. Dunno bout Florida.
Click to expand...

The Texas law is rather murky on that point - it seems that shooting someone fleeing with your property may apply only at night. Other Texas laws have serious flaws - such as that you can openly carry a handgun (w/o LTC) to your car, home or other property yet the law never explains how that handgun managed to get (legally) away from your car, home or other property.

https://thinkprogress.org/three-sel...en-worse-than-stand-your-ground-b425742ff724/

Sec. 9.42. DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT PROPERTY.

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under Section 9.41; and

(2) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:

(A) to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime; or

(B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime from escaping with the property; and

(3) he reasonably believes that:

(A) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or

(B) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury.
https://lawofselfdefense.com/statute/texas-sec-9-42-deadly-force-to-protect-property/
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom