Love these stories...

[crabman]

Another wonderful story of a criminal getting what he deserves. Gotta love the gun owners in this country.

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20100501/NEWS01/100430040/1006/rss01

[Ex250Rider]

Hell yeah, but the thing is if one of these scumbags tries to press charges for assault or battery or whatever then the cops need to step up and defend these people. Other wise people wont help at all for fear that they wil be punished.

[UrbanKnight]

I have a soft spot for these stories... :)

He pulled a Steak knife on a armed guy....

If it was me, there wouldn't of been a fight after that.... only a coroner on the scene

Regardless- Kudos- Was waiting to see some jackass lawyer go after the guy for having a gun in a bank....

[O Holy P]

LOL, "I popped a round off into the ground to let him know I meant business." I would have put one in his arm or leg...or in both hands or stealing. :D

[RiverRoadWarrior]

LOL, "I popped a round off into the ground to let him know I meant business." I would have put one in his arm or leg...or in both hands or stealing. :D

+1

[justlyjohns]

My comments won't be popular given the views of many on the forum; however, there are a couple of other views that I considered when reading this story. A citizen with a permit is not a police officer. He does not necessarily have the training or the mandate to generally enforce criminal law in public. The legally armed citizen has a much narrower legal ground: to protect themselves from serious bodily injury or death, just like the statute and typical use of force policies read in order to be justified in applying deadly force.

It is also a reasonable assumption that an armed citizen is justified in protecting others from the immediate threat of same if the the circumstances are exigent but to chase down someone the distance he did when the perp did not leave someone bleeding on the pavement and was no longer evidently posing any observable threat to anyone - as the vigilante admits in the case at hand - who he didn't see commit a crime to begin with, based on a description alone, then to batter and commit aggravated assault on the person he 'thought' was the subject, then to recklessly fire a round as a 'warning shot', something real police officers and trained shooters don't do, because at that point he realized he got into more than he expected when he decided to play hero and was about to have to cap the guy because he was resisting, is totally out of the citizens authority and was dangerous to him and anyone who might have been around.

I believe in the ability to be armed to protect oneself and others from an immediate and actionable threat but that right needs to be narrowly applied and opportunistic acts of law enforcement left in the hands of trained professional law officers who may have access to stun guns, communications, K-9, and other officers nearby who are all subject to oversight and accountable for their actions by their departments and the law.

I merely imagined if this went down in a mall or a parking lot with innocent bystanders around and Dirty Harry wannabes get the idea that because they have a permit they are somehow deputized. Let the clown run and call the cops unless he is about to shoot or cut you or someone in close proximity.

[RiverRoadWarrior]

I agree with all of that. When I "+1"ed, I was just sayin' if it came to me pullin' the gun, I would have shot him, not fired a warning shot. However, I would never have chased him down to be in that position.

[justlyjohns]

right you are, and I am not defending the sorry looking tragedy in the booking photo, just offering a counterpoint and a word of caution. And I hope no one takes offense to my seeming devil's advocate view...

[O Holy P]

He knew it was the guy, had a bag full of cash "with twenties flying everywhere". He was doing what he could to let other would-be criminals in their community know that "we don't take to your kind 'round here". Or whatever the saying is. As a fellow citizen of the community I'd be proud to have someone like that along side of me, rather than know someone could have done something and didn't. It's just a matter of right & wrong, if it's wrong then there will be a consequence. His father was a 30 year veteran officer, I'm sure he knew a thing or two about what he was getting himself into. I'm sure we all have some story about how we caught the bad guy or assisted in justice being served. I've chased down 2 vehicles that hit & ran to get license plates and returned to the scene to let drivers & officers know the valuable information. I have a concealed permit as well and I'm willing to use it not only for the protection of myself or family, but as well as others around me who may be in danger or idiot criminals who deserve it.

[justlyjohns]

all cool, and yes, IT'S GOOD there are people out there who at least are willing to get involved, but do you trust everyone who has a permit to be as responsible and have good judgement to know what and what not to do? I don't. And, following hit and run drivers is not the same as doing what he did, would you have?

I have gotten involved in things myself and was proud to do so. Among those things, I once saw a guy walk up to a woman loading groceries in her trunk at the curb of a grocery store while holding a toddler, guy walks up and punches her in the face, she drops the kid, he picks up the kid and starts rapidly walking across the parking lot toward Nova Road, I drop what I am doing, dial 911 and am walking 30 feet behind him as I talk to dispatchers, he turns and tells me its his kid, I say, okay, the cops are on the way so lets stop walking and make sure, he doesn't and I keep following him and on the phone giving updates hoping a patrol unit gets there soon and am ready to jump on him if he does anything besides holding the kid, he didn't, and it got resolved with him having a domestic situation and it was his kid but what if it wasn't and why was I alone with no one else assisting me when there were other people there who were as close as I was but did nothing. No, I am all for putting down when its necessary and have done so with a Winchester Defender in my hands when two goons tried to car jack and rob a lady outside an ABC liquor years ago, they were caught and I ID'd them at the local P.D. and testified at the one's trial who didn't take a plea deal, he was found guilty and got 30 years for it, but I damn sure would not have done what this guy did and I think what he did is setting a dangerous precedent.

[DakotaCBR]

I thought it was illegal to fire a warning shot in the state of Florida.

[crabman]

I like the message it sends to would be dirt bags, maybe the next time they think about robbing, beating or whatever they will consider some of us have, carry and can use a gun.

We don't live in a perfect world with perfect people.

[crabman]

Who cares? it's illegal to rob a bank or pull a knife on someone.
I thought it was illegal to fire a warning shot in the state of Florida.

[DakotaCBR]

The robber was running away and therefore no longer considered an immediate threat - until this guy tackled him. The knife was taken away and no longer within reach of the robber. The robber no longer had a deadly weapon and does not boast a tremendous physical advantage over the armed citizen. In Florida, a warning shot is considered use of deadly force, therefore, if it is not justifiable to use deadly force, a warning shot could put you away for a mandatory sentence of 20 years for felony aggravated assault.

Warning shots are a bad idea for several reasons:

1. There is now one less round in the weapon if you actually NEED to use it after firing said warning shot.

2. You are responsible for the projectile. A ricochet is still deadly. There's a saying that goes something like "There's a lawyer attached to every bullet you fire." Let's say the bullet ricocheted and hit someone else - the armed citizen did not need to chase the bad guy and now an innocent person is injured or dead because of his actions.

3. They can be disorienting in certain situations, for both shooter and attacker alike. The warning shot could cause the robber to stop, or it could cause him to really start fighting for his life, escalating the situation to where deadly force is justified. Then again, see reason #1.

If you are going to fire, shoot with the intent to hit your target.

The armed citizen caught the bad guy and justice will be served. Even though the good guy lived through this situation, he is the one who decided to become involved in it in the manner that he did. I'm glad the bad guy got what he deserved, and the armed citizen is most likely not going to be charged for discharging his firearm - good for him. However, owning and carrying a firearm is a responsibility and knowing the laws surrounding it is part of that responsibility.

[CKER]

My comments won't be popular



Agreed. ;)

+1

[RiverRoadWarrior]

I like the message it sends to would be dirt bags, maybe the next time they think about robbing, beating or whatever they will consider some of us have, carry and can use a gun.

We don't live in a perfect world with perfect people.

+1

[UrbanKnight]

+1

+2

Its easy for us to monday morning quarterback all the things the "good guy" in this case did wrong, but at least he did something, compared to 99% of the SHEOPLE that would stand there and watch, paralyzed...

[Ex250Rider]

+2

Its easy for us to monday morning quarterback all the things the "good guy" in this case did wrong, but at least he did something, compared to 99% of the SHEOPLE that would stand there and watch, paralyzed...

Damn straight puss ass people pulling pocket knives and other misc other kitchen untensils on unarmed citizens deserve to have their face kicked in and i am the first person to testify that the criminal tripped and fell on his face while trying to flee. Those who are capable of helping and do nothing are "almost" as guilty. What ever happened to help your fellow man instead of screw them im looking out for number 1. Now not evreyone will have the capacity to help i dont encourage my 100lb girlfriend to go chasing down criminals but for those of us with the capacity DO SOMETHING!
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v738/Center6701/kick-ass1.jpg

[ClevelandWheeler]

+2

Its easy for us to monday morning quarterback all the things the "good guy" in this case did wrong, but at least he did something, compared to 99% of the SHEOPLE that would stand there and watch, paralyzed...


+3

[starrz]

What happened to citizens arrest?
My comments won't be popular given the views of many on the forum; however, there are a couple of other views that I considered when reading this story. A citizen with a permit is not a police officer. He does not necessarily have the training or the mandate to generally enforce criminal law in public. The legally armed citizen has a much narrower legal ground: to protect themselves from serious bodily injury or death, just like the statute and typical use of force policies read in order to be justified in applying deadly force.

It is also a reasonable assumption that an armed citizen is justified in protecting others from the immediate threat of same if the the circumstances are exigent but to chase down someone the distance he did when the perp did not leave someone bleeding on the pavement and was no longer evidently posing any observable threat to anyone - as the vigilante admits in the case at hand - who he didn't see commit a crime to begin with, based on a description alone, then to batter and commit aggravated assault on the person he 'thought' was the subject, then to recklessly fire a round as a 'warning shot', something real police officers and trained shooters don't do, because at that point he realized he got into more than he expected when he decided to play hero and was about to have to cap the guy because he was resisting, is totally out of the citizens authority and was dangerous to him and anyone who might have been around.

I believe in the ability to be armed to protect oneself and others from an immediate and actionable threat but that right needs to be narrowly applied and opportunistic acts of law enforcement left in the hands of trained professional law officers who may have access to stun guns, communications, K-9, and other officers nearby who are all subject to oversight and accountable for their actions by their departments and the law.

I merely imagined if this went down in a mall or a parking lot with innocent bystanders around and Dirty Harry wannabes get the idea that because they have a permit they are somehow deputized. Let the clown run and call the cops unless he is about to shoot or cut you or someone in close proximity.

[ClevelandWheeler]

What happened to citizens arrest?

no such thing in florida

[crabman]

Call it what you want, but this pretty much WAS a "citizens arrest".

[scarredpelt]

no such thing in florida

From my syllabus - CJD_771 (E), Arrest Laws Page 1 of 2

...
3. Explain that under certain statutory sections and under Florida common law, citizens may have the right to make an arrest.


Note that is says, 'may' and not, 'does.' I seem to recall that a citizen could only make arrest on a witnessed felony crime or if he/she had reasonable cause to believe the arrested was the one who committed the felony.

[CodeNinja]

From my syllabus - CJD_771 (E), Arrest Laws Page 1 of 2

...
3. Explain that under certain statutory sections and under Florida common law, citizens may have the right to make an arrest.


Note that is says, 'may' and not, 'does.' I seem to recall that a citizen could only make arrest on a witnessed felony crime or if he/she had reasonable cause to believe the arrested was the one who committed the felony.


That sounds like a slippery legal slope to me.

[ClevelandWheeler]

From my syllabus - CJD_771 (E), Arrest Laws Page 1 of 2

...
3. Explain that under certain statutory sections and under Florida common law, citizens may have the right to make an arrest.


Note that is says, 'may' and not, 'does.' I seem to recall that a citizen could only make arrest on a witnessed felony crime or if he/she had reasonable cause to believe the arrested was the one who committed the felony.

See this is a sticky situation and can get you into trouble.
"Florida does not have a statutory guideline that permits
a "citizen arrest" except in common law, and even in that situation it
extends primarily to businesses wherein a business owner or staff
member detects a theft or other crime on their owned premises and
detains a party for that reason.

FS 776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--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 defend himself or herself or another against such others
imminent use of unlawful force. 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 imminent death or great bodily harm
to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission
of a forcible felony.
It is not a defense that you used force simply because ?B? attempted
to commit, committed, or was escaping after the commission of, a
forcible felony, or that ?B? initially provoked the use of force. It
is, however, a defense in all those instances if:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he
or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he
or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger
other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great
bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the
assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she
desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant
continues or resumes the use of force.
-- 776.041 Use of force by aggressor --

Having said that, if you can justify your actions based on these
criteria you may, on the advice of an attorney (which I highly
recommend), consider using that as a defense.

Finally, in Florida a person has an understood right to defend himself
by choosing the lesser of two evils if forced to do so. This is
commonly called ?Defense of Necessity? and is a rare but valid defense
established by judicial precedent. Florida court cited an old English
case re: Reninger v. Fagossa, 1 Plowd. 1, 19, 75 Eng.Rep. 1, 29-30
(1551): "Where the words of the law are broken to avoid greater
inconvenience, or through necessity, or by compulsion," the law has
not been broken.? Based on this fair rule of law, in 1989 the Florida
legislature passed into the Florida Statutes (1989) law Section 2.01,
which provides: The common and statute laws of England which are of a general and not a local nature ... are declared to be of force in this state;
provided, the said statutes and common law be not inconsistent with
the Constitution and laws of the United States and the acts of the
Legislature of this state."

[ClevelandWheeler]

From my syllabus - CJD_771 (E), Arrest Laws Page 1 of 2

...
3. Explain that under certain statutory sections and under Florida common law, citizens may have the right to make an arrest.


Note that is says, 'may' and not, 'does.' I seem to recall that a citizen could only make arrest on a witnessed felony crime or if he/she had reasonable cause to believe the arrested was the one who committed the felony.

Plus I dont think the department of corrections class (CJD) governs citizens outside the corrections system. I think that would fall under BLE (CMS)

[scarredpelt]

See this is a sticky situation and can get you into trouble.
"Florida does not have a statutory guideline that permits
a "citizen arrest" except in common law, and even in that situation it
extends primarily to businesses wherein a business owner or staff
member detects a theft or other crime on their owned premises and
detains a party for that reason.

FS 776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--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 defend himself or herself or another against such others
imminent use of unlawful force. 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 imminent death or great bodily harm
to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission
of a forcible felony.
It is not a defense that you used force simply because ?B? attempted
to commit, committed, or was escaping after the commission of, a
forcible felony, or that ?B? initially provoked the use of force. It
is, however, a defense in all those instances if:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he
or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he
or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger
other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great
bodily harm to the assailant; or
(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the
assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she
desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant
continues or resumes the use of force.
-- 776.041 Use of force by aggressor --

Having said that, if you can justify your actions based on these
criteria you may, on the advice of an attorney (which I highly
recommend), consider using that as a defense.

Finally, in Florida a person has an understood right to defend himself
by choosing the lesser of two evils if forced to do so. This is
commonly called ?Defense of Necessity? and is a rare but valid defense
established by judicial precedent. Florida court cited an old English
case re: Reninger v. Fagossa, 1 Plowd. 1, 19, 75 Eng.Rep. 1, 29-30
(1551): "Where the words of the law are broken to avoid greater
inconvenience, or through necessity, or by compulsion," the law has
not been broken.? Based on this fair rule of law, in 1989 the Florida
legislature passed into the Florida Statutes (1989) law Section 2.01,
which provides: The common and statute laws of England which are of a general and not a local nature ... are declared to be of force in this state;
provided, the said statutes and common law be not inconsistent with
the Constitution and laws of the United States and the acts of the
Legislature of this state."
:clap\":clap\":clap\":clap\" Excellent!
Plus I dont think the department of corrections class (CJD) governs citizens outside the corrections system. I think that would fall under BLE (CMS)
:finger:

[ClevelandWheeler]

First, excellent post prior to this one.:clap\"

While CJD was the training class to become a corrections officer, the legal 2 portion dealt with primarily constitutional law and I think we can rest assured that the particular statement applied to normal everyday walkabout citizens and not sworn officers.

If anyone still cares about the discussion Section 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.--
(http://www.flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0812/SEC015.HTM&Title=-%3E2009-%3ECh0812-%3ESection%20015#0812.015) 812.015(3)(a) is the one that specifically deals with detaining a shoplifting suspect.


SLippery freaking slope indeed. It is nice that people are willing to stand up and do something but it is the other extreme from doing nothing that many have become accustomed to.

Like I said it pertains to the store owner/employees and not specifically normal citizen and if a normal citizen did do it and the theft was Petit then that person can go to jail too. I can't say I wouldn't do anything if I saw something like that happening though I would do something but would probably run along the lines of looking like self defense after confronting the thief.

[scarredpelt]

Like I said it pertains to the store owner/employees and not specifically normal citizen and if a normal citizen did do it and the theft was Petit then that person can go to jail too. I can't say I wouldn't do anything if I saw something like that happening though I would do something but would probably run along the lines of looking like self defense after confronting the thief.

Damnit! I thought I deleted that noise in time!

[ClevelandWheeler]

Damnit! I thought I deleted that noise in time!

LMAO I just noticed that.:lol!:

[RiverRoadWarrior]

Straight from the Florida Statutes...

776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

(1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony; or

(2) Under those circumstances permitted pursuant to s. 776.013.


I just thought I'd point that out after having read...



(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he
or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he
or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger
other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great
bodily harm to the assailant; or


which seems to be outdated. The right to stand your ground is a recent change in the law. You're no longer required to attempt to escape.

[ClevelandWheeler]

which seems to be outdated. The right to stand your ground is a recent change in the law. You're no longer required to attempt to escape.

lol Im gonna say they just reworded it it still means the same thing but you are correct as to the fact they changed it. But it doesnt have anything to do with a "citizens arrest"