• 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

ttwtt78640 said:
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...

Yeah, well, you break into my home, I shoot you. I'm a simple gal.
Click to expand...
 
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.

Renae said:
"[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.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/florida-...s-alleged-shoplifter-surveillance-video-shows
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Red:
Surely you don't imagine I'm going to construe the fact of your and the shooter, Michael's, defense attorney barking up the same tree to exculpate Michael as anything other than both of you grasping at straws to defend Michael's rash behavior?

AFAIC, the only difference between you and Franklin is that he is at least being paid to do so.

I understand why Michael's attorney is making the (weak) appeal he is; he's paid to do so and as a member of the bar who's accepted the case, he must put forth whatever effort -- paltry, strong, or something in between -- he can to defend the guy. Why anyone not thus obliged would, in this instance embrace and advance the same thin line of defense is a mystery to me, but it's one for which, as one might aptly infer from my remarks in post 39, I seek no answer.
 
Renae said:
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.
Click to expand...

Red:
See post 39.
 
Xelor said:
Red:
Surely you don't imagine I'm going to construe the fact of your and the shooter, Michael's, defense attorney barking up the same tree to exculpate Michael as anything other than both of you grasping at straws to defend Michael's rash behavior?

AFAIC, the only difference between you and Franklin is that he is at least being paid to do so.

I understand why Michael's attorney is making the (weak) appeal he is; he's paid to do so and as a member of the bar who's accepted the case, he must put forth whatever effort -- paltry, strong, or something in between -- he can to defend the guy. Why anyone not thus obliged would, in this instance embrace and advance the same thin line of defense is a mystery to me, but it's one for which, as one might aptly infer from my remarks in post 39, I seek no answer.
Click to expand...

Actually the fox story shows there was something in the guys right hand, regardless you're holding a store owner under duress because of a criminal for not making the "right" decision in your mind. You're mad a criminal died.... amazing.
 
Renae said:
Actually the fox story shows there was something in the guys right hand, regardless you're holding a store owner under duress because of a criminal for not making the "right" decision in your mind. You're mad a criminal died.... amazing.
Click to expand...

It really doesn't matter to me whether an unjustly shot person is a criminal. He could have been a criminal, Gandhi, Mother Theresa, or Christ risen and walking amongst us; my view on the matter of his having been unjustly killed would be the same. Unjust actions and outcomes are unjust, regardless of to whom they happen.
  • A bad person who does a good deed is still a bad person. S/he's merely a bad person who did something good.
  • A good person who does something bad is still a good person; however, s/he must still pay the price for the bad deed even though s/he's otherwise a good person.
 
Last edited:
The moral of the story: DO NOT SHOPLIFT
 
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...

While I support the right to defend person and property with lethal force, if need be, stealing should not be a capital offense. A human with a shred of empathy should value a human life more than an object.
 
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...

Based on what is presented so far . . the video and the article i see no way to call this anything but murder :shrug:
 
jet57 said:
Another idiot with a gun: looks like murder to me.
Click to expand...

the real idiot was the shoplifter. Not murder-at worst homicide. What bothers you is this guy could own a gun
 
The store owner grabbed the thief to keep him from leaving before shooting him. That action, by definition, means "Stand your Ground" should not apply. You can't claim self defense when you keep the person you are accusing of threatening you from leaving.
 
Fledermaus said:
One has to wonder about the intelligence of someone trying to shoplift a hatchet. Who when given the chance to pay for it runs. Then runs in the face of a firearm.
Click to expand...
Yes running with a firearm in your face = unintelligent.
 
Sampson Simpson said:
another ***** gun owner hiding behind his gun and so quick to kill someone
Click to expand...

does that make you another far lefty who is finds the lives of criminals more valuable than the rest of us do?
 
OK, I didnt watch the video.

But some thoughts:

a) a thief stole a gun. The odds of that gun being used in other crimes and even killing others are high.

b) in most cases I do not believe in shooting to preserve property but this ^^^ is a reason to reconsider in this scenario.

c) since I didnt watch the video I cant say if he appeared an imminent threat to the shooter. But weighed WITH a) above, it could have added to the perception of danger and the thief's willingness to use that hatchet for the shooter.
 
zsu2357 said:
You must be aware of evidence that we aren't. Could you please share it? All I saw was a 44 second video w/o sound. Has anyone else seen anything or heard? I'll wait for more evidence myself.
Click to expand...

I saw him grab the thief who was leaving , turn him and then shoot him. You can only shoot someone like that in self defense. These are the guys that mess up the 2nd for the rest of us.
 
Manc Skipper said:
More pleasant than the stench of smug approval of murder. White privilege, eh?
Click to expand...

Its not murder, its man slaughter. And if you'll view the posts in this thread, no one has approved it...we've all denounced it as unjustified.
 
Dunn wasn't at risk or under threat. He executed a pesky hispanic on camera, and nothing happened. THAT's privilege.
 
SMTA said:
Afraid my ass. He shot the guy on his way out the door.
Bad shoot, shooter needs to fry.
Click to expand...

oh the dramatics. its most likely manslaughter-5-10 years max. And lets see what sort of record the dead shoplifter has.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Dunn wasn't at risk or under threat. He executed a pesky hispanic on camera, and nothing happened. THAT's privilege.
Click to expand...

that's really silly to hurl nonsense about "privilege" until you see what happens
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom