self defense thread

[Lonestar_logic]

This isn't about the robber. This is about a guy who comes out of a BK and starts shooting. What if someone had been pulling into the lot with their family when it happened? What if the guy turned around and returned fire back into the restaraunt? This is about the innocent bystanders who could have been hurt or killed. If the man was not in immediate danger of his life or the lives of his family, he had no business pulling his weapon.

Screw all the "what if's" and look at the facts as we know them.

I would have shot the son-of-a-bitch too.

I am looking at the facts as they have been presented. I don't know what you are looking at.

No you presented "what if's", none of which are related to the facts.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

This is not self defense. If you follow the thief outside to shoot him - it's NOT self defense.

I understand people's frustration with crime and how so many live in a state of almost constant fear. Those are the folks who applaud this.

I have serious reservations about this kind of stuff. I don't like to see shoot-outs on the street. Lot of innocent bystanders can get caught up in the crossfire. Very dangerous stuff.

How many times have you witnessed shoot-outs in the streets?

 

[hortysir]

The guy isn't dead, he was shot in the leg by this man, who apparently ran outside after him (in fear of his life!) and shot several times at the perp as the perp was getting into his car.

Luckily no innocent bystanders were harmed.

Vigilante justice is just wrong.

The "perp" was standing outside the restaurant.
He just took, what he thought to be, an easy target. How do we know he wouldn't come back in and/or try to take another?

And your version is more than slightly embellished:

The father, fearing for his life, took out his gun and shot the suspect in the leg as he stood outside the restaurant, police said.
The suspect, 36-year-old Travis Harris, jumped into a getaway Ford F-150 and took off, police said.

I read that elsewhere, that he was getting into his truck when shot. He certainly had left the restaurant and it looks as if there was no self-defense involved.

Fair enough, I guess.

But I also guess that I wouldn't have chose a shootout so close to my kids and as soon as I knew that they were out of harm's way I probably would have "went medieval on his ass" too.

 

[Ravi]

The "perp" was standing outside the restaurant.
He just took, what he thought to be, an easy target. How do we know he wouldn't come back in and/or try to take another?

And your version is more than slightly embellished:

I read that elsewhere, that he was getting into his truck when shot. He certainly had left the restaurant and it looks as if there was no self-defense involved.

Fair enough, I guess.

But I also guess that I wouldn't have chose a shootout so close to my kids and as soon as I knew that they were out of harm's way I probably would have "went medieval on his ass" too.

I just read yet another version, where the guy wasn't even sitting with his wife and kid and as soon as the perp stole the phones, the guy whipped out his gun and started shooting at him, inside the restaurant.

Who knows? All the versions of the story endanger bystanders over a couple of freaking cell phones.

Nuts.

 

[hortysir]

I read that elsewhere, that he was getting into his truck when shot. He certainly had left the restaurant and it looks as if there was no self-defense involved.

Fair enough, I guess.

But I also guess that I wouldn't have chose a shootout so close to my kids and as soon as I knew that they were out of harm's way I probably would have "went medieval on his ass" too.

I just read yet another version, where the guy wasn't even sitting with his wife and kid and as soon as the perp stole the phones, the guy whipped out his gun and started shooting at him, inside the restaurant.

Who knows? All the versions of the story endanger bystanders over a couple of freaking cell phones.

Nuts.

Can't remember where I saw it....probably around here somewhere....
But it was about the order of things that happen after a shooting. How the stories change, the body count, etc...

 

[WorldWatcher]

A father who was robbed while eating with his family took out his own gun and shot the suspect, Miami Police said.

It happened at about 1 p.m. Friday at the Burger King restaurant at Biscayne Boulevard and Northeast 17th Street, police said.

Suspect Robs Family at Miami Burger King, Then Man Shoots Him: Police | NBC 6 South Florida

Self-defense? No, your link indicates that the thief was inside the Burger King along with the family when he began the commission of a forcible felony (robbery with the use of a fire arm). The thief then existed the building to get away the the individual followed him outside to shoot at him. (A) Resonable fear for his life is not consistent with following someone outside a building to pursue them, and (B) at the point the thief was departing the shooter was no longer in danger, so there was nothing to "self-defense" against.


Now with that said... The true question was, under Florida Law was the use of force justified and that was why the father wasn't arrested.

After reading the law was the father attempting to stop someone from completing a Forcible Felony (Arm Robbery). The answer is "Yes". Therefore it may not have been "self-defense" as the family at the time of the shooting was not in danger, however the shooting was justified to stop a Forcible Felony.


************************************************


Title XLVI
CRIMES

Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

View Entire Chapter
776.031 Use of force in defense of others.—A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine


>>>>

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Good for him.

But, I do support all states having a concealed weapons permit program, WITH a mandatory 40 hours initial training (8 hours on 5 separate Saturdays), with a renewal/refresher anywhere from every 5-10 years.

He was a good shot. Thank God. But what if he wasnt, and someone else's family had a member take a stray bullet?

Im 100% in favor of being able to carry concealed. Just make sure everyone is safe and trained. Not too much to ask I dont think. Many will say "But I DO train and am safe, I dont need training". Maybe not. But not everyone is you, and the only way to know those folks get some basics is to require it along with the responsibility of carrying a gun.

More tax dollars on useless programs. We already have parks with ranges in most areas. Do you suppose peple might actually go there and learn to shoot on their own?

Nah, not enough government snooping to satisfy the statists.

 

[Ravi]

A father who was robbed while eating with his family took out his own gun and shot the suspect, Miami Police said.

It happened at about 1 p.m. Friday at the Burger King restaurant at Biscayne Boulevard and Northeast 17th Street, police said.

Suspect Robs Family at Miami Burger King, Then Man Shoots Him: Police | NBC 6 South Florida

Self-defense? No, your link indicates that the thief was inside the Burger King along with the family when he began the commission of a forcible felony (robbery with the use of a fire arm). The thief then existed the building to get away the the individual followed him outside to shoot at him. (A) Resonable fear for his life is not consistent with following someone outside a building to pursue them, and (B) at the point the thief was departing the shooter was no longer in danger, so there was nothing to "self-defense" against.


Now with that said... The true question was, under Florida Law was the use of force justified and that was why the father wasn't arrested.

After reading the law was the father attempting to stop someone from completing a Forcible Felony (Arm Robbery). The answer is "Yes". Therefore it may not have been "self-defense" as the family at the time of the shooting was not in danger, however the shooting was justified to stop a Forcible Felony.


************************************************


Title XLVI
CRIMES

Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

View Entire Chapter
776.031 Use of force in defense of others.—A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine


>>>>

Yep, if the scenario played out like any of the reports have it, under Florida law the man with the gun could have killed the perp for cell phone theft and gotten off scott free.

It's a stupid law, imo.

 

[WorldWatcher]

A father who was robbed while eating with his family took out his own gun and shot the suspect, Miami Police said.

It happened at about 1 p.m. Friday at the Burger King restaurant at Biscayne Boulevard and Northeast 17th Street, police said.

Suspect Robs Family at Miami Burger King, Then Man Shoots Him: Police | NBC 6 South Florida

Self-defense? No, your link indicates that the thief was inside the Burger King along with the family when he began the commission of a forcible felony (robbery with the use of a fire arm). The thief then existed the building to get away the the individual followed him outside to shoot at him. (A) Resonable fear for his life is not consistent with following someone outside a building to pursue them, and (B) at the point the thief was departing the shooter was no longer in danger, so there was nothing to "self-defense" against.


Now with that said... The true question was, under Florida Law was the use of force justified and that was why the father wasn't arrested.

After reading the law was the father attempting to stop someone from completing a Forcible Felony (Arm Robbery). The answer is "Yes". Therefore it may not have been "self-defense" as the family at the time of the shooting was not in danger, however the shooting was justified to stop a Forcible Felony.


************************************************


Title XLVI
CRIMES

Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

View Entire Chapter
776.031 Use of force in defense of others.—A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine


>>>>

Yep, if the scenario played out like any of the reports have it, under Florida law the man with the gun could have killed the perp for cell phone theft and gotten off scott free.

It's a stupid law, imo.

I understand you are trying to trivialize the attempted Forcible Felony (Armed Robbery), but the article linked in the OP didn't indicate that the thief was shot for the cell phone. The cell phone specific robbery had occurred earlier in the day, this was their second robbery. The article linked in the OP indicates that the thief was after the families valuables which would have included (probably) multiple cell phones, cash, jewlery, and most importantly his and her wallets which would have contained credit cards and identify information.

What was taken is less important than the fact that the robber used a gun making the crime a forcible felony and under Florida law the father was allowed to use force (even deadly force) to attempt to stop him.



>>>>

 

[Ravi]

Self-defense? No, your link indicates that the thief was inside the Burger King along with the family when he began the commission of a forcible felony (robbery with the use of a fire arm). The thief then existed the building to get away the the individual followed him outside to shoot at him. (A) Resonable fear for his life is not consistent with following someone outside a building to pursue them, and (B) at the point the thief was departing the shooter was no longer in danger, so there was nothing to "self-defense" against.


Now with that said... The true question was, under Florida Law was the use of force justified and that was why the father wasn't arrested.

After reading the law was the father attempting to stop someone from completing a Forcible Felony (Arm Robbery). The answer is "Yes". Therefore it may not have been "self-defense" as the family at the time of the shooting was not in danger, however the shooting was justified to stop a Forcible Felony.


************************************************


Title XLVI
CRIMES

Chapter 776
JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE

View Entire Chapter
776.031 Use of force in defense of others.—A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate the other’s trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person does not have a duty to retreat if the person is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine


>>>>

Yep, if the scenario played out like any of the reports have it, under Florida law the man with the gun could have killed the perp for cell phone theft and gotten off scott free.

It's a stupid law, imo.

I understand you are trying to trivialize the attempted Forcible Felony (Armed Robbery), but the article linked in the OP didn't indicate that the thief was shot for the cell phone. The cell phone specific robbery had occurred earlier in the day, this was their second robbery. The article linked in the OP indicates that the thief was after the families valuables which would have included (probably) multiple cell phones, cash, jewlery, and most importantly his and her wallets which would have contained credit cards and identify information.

What was taken is less important than the fact that the robber used a gun making the crime a forcible felony and under Florida law the father was allowed to use force (even deadly force) to attempt to stop him.



>>>>

I only read that he stole the phones and WAS LEAVING. Yes, the fact that he used a gun makes it a forcible felony. But that doesn't justify vigilante justice....even if he also took wallets, jewelry, etc. Not all crimes deserve the death penalty.

 

[Ravi]

and LOL at your editorializing my thoughts. Trivializing indeed.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

A father who was robbed while eating with his family took out his own gun and shot the suspect, Miami Police said.

It happened at about 1 p.m. Friday at the Burger King restaurant at Biscayne Boulevard and Northeast 17th Street, police said.

Suspect Robs Family at Miami Burger King, Then Man Shoots Him: Police | NBC 6 South Florida

Maybe I'm missing something here. The robbery was over and the man was walking out the door when the guy pulled out his gun and shot him? He risked engaging in a gunfight, with his family there, after the threat was over?

Why do you think the threat was over?

 

[WorldWatcher]

Yep, if the scenario played out like any of the reports have it, under Florida law the man with the gun could have killed the perp for cell phone theft and gotten off scott free.

It's a stupid law, imo.

I understand you are trying to trivialize the attempted Forcible Felony (Armed Robbery), but the article linked in the OP didn't indicate that the thief was shot for the cell phone. The cell phone specific robbery had occurred earlier in the day, this was their second robbery. The article linked in the OP indicates that the thief was after the families valuables which would have included (probably) multiple cell phones, cash, jewlery, and most importantly his and her wallets which would have contained credit cards and identify information.

What was taken is less important than the fact that the robber used a gun making the crime a forcible felony and under Florida law the father was allowed to use force (even deadly force) to attempt to stop him.



>>>>

I only read that he stole the phones and WAS LEAVING. Yes, the fact that he used a gun makes it a forcible felony. But that doesn't justify vigilante justice....even if he also took wallets, jewelry, etc. Not all crimes deserve the death penalty.

Never said that all crimes deserved the death penalty. What I said was that under Florida Law the force used by the father to prevent the commission of armed robbery (a forcible felony) was justified under the law.

This wasn't "vigilante" justice which as defined by Merriam-Webster means ": a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate); broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice"


This wasn't the administration of justice outside the law, it was the application of a lawful action.



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

A father who was robbed while eating with his family took out his own gun and shot the suspect, Miami Police said.

It happened at about 1 p.m. Friday at the Burger King restaurant at Biscayne Boulevard and Northeast 17th Street, police said.

Suspect Robs Family at Miami Burger King, Then Man Shoots Him: Police | NBC 6 South Florida

Maybe I'm missing something here. The robbery was over and the man was walking out the door when the guy pulled out his gun and shot him? He risked engaging in a gunfight, with his family there, after the threat was over?

Why do you think the threat was over?

The article from the OP indicates the family was inside the Burger King when the robbery took place. The robber left, thereby ending the threat. The father followed the perpetrator outside. Once the robber left the building the "threat" was over, but not the commission of the crime which the law authorized the father to attempt to stop.

"Self Defense"? No.

"Justifiable Use of Force"? Yes.


>>>>

 

[Ravi]

I understand you are trying to trivialize the attempted Forcible Felony (Armed Robbery), but the article linked in the OP didn't indicate that the thief was shot for the cell phone. The cell phone specific robbery had occurred earlier in the day, this was their second robbery. The article linked in the OP indicates that the thief was after the families valuables which would have included (probably) multiple cell phones, cash, jewlery, and most importantly his and her wallets which would have contained credit cards and identify information.

What was taken is less important than the fact that the robber used a gun making the crime a forcible felony and under Florida law the father was allowed to use force (even deadly force) to attempt to stop him.



>>>>

I only read that he stole the phones and WAS LEAVING. Yes, the fact that he used a gun makes it a forcible felony. But that doesn't justify vigilante justice....even if he also took wallets, jewelry, etc. Not all crimes deserve the death penalty.

Never said that all crimes deserved the death penalty. What I said was that under Florida Law the force used by the father to prevent the commission of armed robbery (a forcible felony) was justified under the law.

This wasn't "vigilante" justice which as defined by Merriam-Webster means ": a member of a volunteer committee organized to suppress and punish crime summarily (as when the processes of law are viewed as inadequate); broadly : a self-appointed doer of justice"


This wasn't the administration of justice outside the law, it was the application of a lawful action.



>>>>

Like I said above, under Florida law he was justified. But IMO it is a stupid law. What Florida has done is basically legalize vigilante justice. No trial, etc, just bang, you're dead. I don't have a problem with that if it really was self-defense, but this doesn't appear to be the case in this instance.

 

[squeeze berry]

The guy isn't dead, he was shot in the leg by this man, who apparently ran outside after him (in fear of his life!) and shot several times at the perp as the perp was getting into his car.

Luckily no innocent bystanders were harmed.

Vigilante justice is just wrong.

you mean like the vigilante justice being served on George Zimmerman?

 

[OriginalShroom]

Perhaps the next time this fine young man who simply made a mistake, as some of the left would like to have us believe, won't mistakenly flash a gun while asking complete strangers to hand over their possessions to him.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The guy isn't dead, he was shot in the leg by this man, who apparently ran outside after him (in fear of his life!) and shot several times at the perp as the perp was getting into his car.

Luckily no innocent bystanders were harmed.

Vigilante justice is just wrong.

you mean like the vigilante justice being served on George Zimmerman?

Last I checked George Zimmerman is scheduled to be tried in a court of law by a jury of his peers.


>>>>

 

[OODA_Loop]

That Huffington link has the typical spin all over it.

Bullets fly, suspect shot in leg during attempted robbery at Miami Burger King | Crime | Bradenton Herald

 

[hortysir]

The guy isn't dead, he was shot in the leg by this man, who apparently ran outside after him (in fear of his life!) and shot several times at the perp as the perp was getting into his car.

Luckily no innocent bystanders were harmed.

Vigilante justice is just wrong.

you mean like the vigilante justice being served on George Zimmerman?

Last I checked George Zimmerman is scheduled to be tried in a court of law by a jury of his peers.


>>>>

As will this man