Stand Your Ground justice, Florida style. Shoot a fleeing thief.

[hay rick]

In Jensen Beach, Florida, the owner of Treasure Coast Liquidators shot and possibly killed a fleeing robber who had jumped in the passenger seat of a getaway car as it was pulling away from the store. The proprietor is a retired police officer who took one shot with a Glock 19. The shot went through the back window and headrest of the stolen SUV.

The robber, who is currently on life support, is a 17 year-old black kid. The teen driving the car was a 16-year old who crashed the car immediately after the shot was fired, ran away on foot, was captured, and is now in custody. Under Florida law, he could be charged with second degree felony murder if his friend dies.

In the initial reporting of the incident by TCPalm, on December 14th, the sheriff described the incident:

"...McMillian went into the store...started trying on jewelry and then ran out of the store.
As McMillian was running out of the store, an employee saw the jewelry on the boy's hand and tried to take back the jewelry, Snyder said. The employee and McMillian then began to fight and the teen was able to push off the employee and get into the car... Snyder said another employee, Michael Dacey, saw the scuffle, came out of the store and shot at the vehicle through the back glass at least once."

TCPalm's reporting the next day expands the story, quoting an arrest report: " Michael (Dacey) stated that he believed that (the employee) had been hit by the car or he was shot." The second story also expands the sheriff's remarks; "We have no intention, as of now, of making an arrest. We walked away believing that the shooting was justified, well within the scope of using justifiable force during the commission of a forcible felony."

Gil Smart picks up the story in a column published in the Stuart News on December 18...

Dacey thought McMillian might have had a gun, Snyder said. So even as the vehicle began to speed away, Dacey was "well within the scope of using justifiable force during the commission of a forcible felony"...

That would seem to be a bit of a stretch, as Florida law specifies the use of deadly force is justified "to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony" (emphasis added).

The only thing "imminent" at the moment Dacey fired was the thieves' escape.

Notice that the justification for shooting at a fleeing thief now includes the statement that the shooter believed the thief might have possessed a gun. Smart's failure to endorse vigilantism led to a social media flogging which he reported in his column today. That column also includes the latest retelling of the robbery story which has now been embellished with the assertion that McMillian "threatened to kill the wife of the owner before running out of the store."

[Jake Stern]

1. An easy peasy way to not get shot:

Don't commit robberies.

Why avoiding the temptation to commit violent crime is such a Herculean task for dumbass crooks like this pair is a real head scratcher.

[mr_lebowski]

3. It's not a robbery, mate ... it's shoplifting ...

They also appeared to do nothing violent other than struggle to get away ...

This guys action was indefensible, IMHO ...

[LisaL]

5. He allegedly threatened the woman who showed him the jewelry.

That makes it a robbery, not shop-lifting.

[mr_lebowski]

6. Allegedly ... and it sounds that was a 'later embellishment' and not part of

the original report.

Regardless, the KID was running away, clearly no longer a threat to the life and limb of anyone in the store.

Had this man gone out and pointed his gun at the car, to scare them away, and prevent any actual harm coming to the store & it's employees? GREAT! PERFECT!

Actually deciding to shoot a fleeing 17 y.o. over a friggin bracelet or whatever? Which was I'M SURE insured?

Sorry ... way outta line.

And I bet money if the kid was WHITE? That wouldn't have happened. But I guess we'll never know.

[LisaL]

7. Not sure what you are claiming here.

What original report?

[mr_lebowski]

8. See the last paragraph of the OP ... sounds like the 'story has changed'

since it's earlier incarnation(s) to include a supposed threat to a woman in the store ...

[Chin music]

20. And...he shot into traffic.

On an open road, w cars going by in the background. Gun happy.

[Roy Rolling]

4. Time Machine

If they only had a time machine that would solve everything. But picking up the story after the unfortunate decision to commit a property crime had been committed, is a death sentence the appropriate response in a civilized, law-and-order society?

That's what makes civilized society so difficult, the decisions are mostly shades of gray.

[JCanete]

10. really? is that all it takes? Wow. I'll pass that around.

So people should just take justice into their own hands and shoot people even if they believe a crime has been committed. Who needs a judge and a jury.



What violent crime are you referring to by the way? Oh, right running and inciting somebody to shoot at them? TOTALLY. Lets not even consider the potential for collateral damage.

Theft is not justification for capital punishment, and vigilante Capital Punishment to boot. What the fuck are YOU thinking?

[Chin music]

21. +1

[TrollBuster9090]

12. Agreed, but that doesn't help us here...

That addresses the bad behavior of the robbers, not the bad behavior of the shooter. And I say 'bad behavior of the shooter' because shooting is not justified in all cases.

Even the most enthusiastic 2nd Amendment fanatics claim that the 2nd Amendment is based on the 'natural right' to self defense and self preservation. Originally, that was interpreted as the right to shoot somebody who threatens your safety (or life) in your home. The 'stand your ground' laws extended that to everyplace.

But you are in no danger, and your life is not being threatened when the robber is FLEEING AWAY FROM YOU at HIGH SPEED, in a CAR. Even Marshall Dillon wouldn't justify shooting a bad guy in the back.

[3Hotdogs]

2. Thing about this that struck me ---- there's a string of cars going by in the background.

Suppose this dumbass missed and some poor summ-abitch going home to his family, doesn't get to go home.

[RVN VET71]

9. In which case both thieves would have been charged with murder.

The off-duty cop should not have fired on the fleeing thieves, but he did and nothing will happen to him. Cops don't get hassled for that sort of shooting. They just don't.

But it's apparent that the thieves, had they been allowed to flee, would most likely have been caught and arrested soon after fleeing the scene -- they weren't professionals. They weren't even clever amateurs. What they did was wrong and they did it clumsily, and without showing any evidence of planning.

Still, the one didn't deserve death for his crime; and the survivor should not be facing a murder charge for his.

But when you commit a crime, whatever consequences you suffer are on you, not the law. Whatever consequences. I'm sorry one young man is dead. I'm sorry one young man faces a murder rap. But if they'd not committed a crime -- and it was their own decision -- they'd both be alive and free.

[Chin music]

22. My thought exactly.

[Honeycombe8]

11. I don't know the law there, but it's hard for me to feel sympathy for thieves.

When they get killed or hurt in the commission of their crime. It's a high tension, high stress time for any victim, so it's hard for me to attack the actions of any victim, under such circumstances.

[Nitram]

16. Honey, I understand where you are coming from, but do you really want to give the police

a pass to shoot people anytime they want? There are either laws and regulations and policies that guide the cops' behavior, or there are not. We've embarked on a slippery slope if we condone shooting a fleeing thief (who has injured no one) in the back.

[TrollBuster9090]

13. Two Words: Michael Slager.

A South Carolina (of all places) Grand Jury indicted on-duty police officer Michael Slager of second degree murder when he shot fleeing suspect Walter Scott in the back as he tried to run away.

Lethal force was not necessary. Not for law enforcement OR self defense reasons.

You'd think that would apply even more to a retired cop, instead of an on-duty cop; and robbers/shoplifters that are fleeing in a car.

Mind you, Florida's gun politics is pretty skewed and extreme. If they make this political, it could end up setting a bad precedent.

[FBaggins]

18. I'm having trouble watching the video and thinking "retired cop"

Shooting while running with the gun in one hand?

I'd say that nobody could expect to hit anything like that... except that he did.

[Chin music]

23. Remember him planting a weapon by the victim?

I do. It was on someones phone camera. Traffic stop. Guys family is minus a man.

[rownesheck]

14. Thieves piss me off!!!!

working in retail all my life, i consider thieves to be the lowest of the low. I see it as a personal attack on me, not the company. Putting other people in danger by just blasting away with a gun isn't cool either. I wish some device could be invented to attach to merchandise, car, etc that if not deactivated, would result in SEVERE damage to the person trying to steal it. Possibly, a small explosion of some kind. Most people would not agree with this, so i guess it's good i don't make the laws. Seriously though, i put thievery up there with murder and speeding excessively on the roadways. The worst people are the ones who are just being d-bags to normal people in society.

[Nitram]

17. If you can attach a device that will injure the thief, it would be cheaper, easier, and safer to

attach a small tracking device that would allow the cops to find and arrest the perpetrator(s). Do you want every item in your store to be dangerous? that sounds like the perfect recipe for disaster.

[Chin music]

24. Stealing is as bad as murder?

Speeding excessively? Wow man. Hopefully you don't pack a rod...ever.

[marble falls]

15. None of this justified that shooting. They were escaping and none of them had or showed a ...

weapon.

[hay rick]

19. Florida coddles its vigilantes.

Last edited Sat Dec 22, 2018, 11:47 PM - Edit history (1)

Florida has been a willing testing ground for the NRA's most permissive gun laws. The Florida version of stand your ground gained national notoriety with the Trevon Martin killing. This incident would seem to extend protection of shooters to shop owners defending their merchandise, not their lives.

Florida's stand your ground law states that "A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force...to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm...or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony." One would suppose, as did Mr. Smart, that imminent means "about to happen" and the right is only to prevent a crime. Read on.

Florida statute 776.08 provides a list giving examples of crimes that are considered "forcible felonies." That list includes robbery.

Robbery is defined in statute 812.13...

(1)"Robbery" means the taking of money or other property...when in the course of taking there is the use of force, violence, assault, or putting in fear.

and further down this is added...
(3)(a) An act shall be deemed "in the course of committing the robbery" if it occurs in an attempt to commit robbery or in flight after the attempt or commission."

I noted in my description of the coverage of the event that the shooter's supposition that the robber might have had a gun did not show up in the original story. The "death threat" in the store shows up even later. This could be attributable to later reporting being more complete. It also could be the result of the calculation that certain additions to the story would provide legal protection to the shooter.

Florida law offers extraordinary opportunities for abuse by "make my day" shooters.