Maitland Store Owner Shoots At Robbery Suspects

[CharlieMike]

This happened in my city. My only problem with this story is the "as the robbers fled, the owner pulled out a gun and started shooting..."

Should he have shot if they were fleeing?

http://www.wftv.com/news/13766393/detail.html

WFTV.com

The owner of a Maitland sub shop fought back Thursday night after he was ambushed. He pulled out a gun and started firing, hitting one suspect.

Maitland Store Owner Shoots At Robbery Suspects

POSTED: 6:50 am EDT July 27, 2007

MAITLAND, Fla. -- The owner of a Maitland sub shop fought back Thursday night after he was ambushed. He pulled out a gun and started firing, hitting one suspect.

Around 11:00pm Thursday night, Kappy's Subs in Maitland had just closed and the owner was walking outside with money. To a pair of armed teens he looked like the perfect victim.

"They came from both sides of the building and they did rob him because he had money bags in his possession at the time," said Lt. J.G. Schardine of the Maitland Police Department.

But money wasn't all the owner of the shop had. As the robbers fled, the owner pulled out a gun and started shooting, hitting one of the suspects in the shoulder.

Early Friday morning, police dogs followed a trail of blood down Maitland Avenue. They found the money bags just lying on the street. A few steps away they located the injured suspect. He was arrested and loaded into an ambulance.

Police caught the other suspect near the Maitland Avenue post office. The two teens were identified as Derrell Ross and Manuel Gomes, both 16-years-old. Police found their weapon behind the restaurant and as it turned out it was a toy gun.

"The money has been recovered and two people are in custody," Schardine said. "Hopefully, they learned a lesson. Never rob someone again."

Derrell Ross was taken to Florida Hospital for the gun shot wound. He was also bitten by a police dog.

Copyright 2007 by wftv.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[OPFOR]

Based solely on this article, the sub shop owner may have some 'splainin' to do...

[hrtbrk07]

Well, it stops being self defense once the altercation is over...But I can't say I'd throw him in jail for it...

[MattInFla]

It used to be that this sort of thing would be a clear-cut case, and the owner would be wrong.

But how many recent stories have their been of the robber, having gotten what they wanted, turning around and shooting their victim anyway?

The "fleeing" robber is still an armed felon, and still actively committing a forcible felony under Florida law. I don't think the owner here will face charges.

Matt

[miklcolt45]

If we can presume the reporter/newspaper got it right, and that's a BIG IF, he could be in trouble. But, we can't presume that.

[portsider44]

My only problem with this story is the "as the robbers fled, the owner pulled out a gun and started shooting..."

Should he have shot if they were fleeing?

Maybe not enough info here, but I am leaning more towards the shop owner. Even if they were fleeing he still has a right to protect his property.
Hope every thing works out for him.

[OPFOR]

Maybe not enough info here, but I am leaning more towards the shop owner. Even if they were fleeing he still has a right to protect his property.
Hope every thing works out for him.

Be careful with this - in almost all cases deadly force is NOT authorized to protect property (that is, "things," - not "the place you live" type property.)

I am hoping that this is a good shoot, but in general, shooting at a fleeing suspect is problematic.

[phaed]

it'll depend on the state. i don't have a problem with someone shooting armed criminals that are fleeing, because they are still a threat to you and others.

[peacefuljeffrey]

It's too easy for me to imagine an armed robber firing back as he is leaving the scene, for me to condemn someone for shooting at him "after" the robbery. The only "after" that I feel occurs is once the robber is long gone; it is certainly not "after" when he is still in sight, and can still fire at his victim as he leaves.

There's going to have to be a whole lot of reevaluating the justification of use of force in our new reality, when robbers are SO depraved that they seem to regularly be killing their victims even after being given everything. The playing field is shifting, and I feel it's time to grant defenders the unbridled right to fight their attackers to the death. There is simply no justification for forcing honest people to wait to see if their attacker means to kill them. If people want to not get shot and killed by a defending victim, they have the option of not trying to rob anyone. Cross that line, and I for one sure as hell will never feel sorry for you.

[peacefuljeffrey]

Be careful with this - in almost all cases deadly force is NOT authorized to protect property (that is, "things," - not "the place you live" type property.)

I am FED UP TO HERE with people talking about how this amounts to "shooting someone over 'things' ".

If I am in possession of my things at the time someone is trying to rob me of them, I am defending MYSELF, NOT MY THINGS.

How the hell can you separate the idea of taking the "things" from me from the idea of threatening my life in order to do so?!

If someone tries to rob me of a piece of Bazooka gum, he's getting shot. Why? Because my life is not worth the gamble of hoping that after he gets what he wants from me, he's not going to attempt to take my life. Strike one against him was the fact that he is willing to rob me. That doesn't put into my mind a lot of cause to believe he's a noble, harmless guy. Should it?

Once again, robbery is NOT about THINGS. It's about the PERSON BEING ROBBED.

[SleepingZ]

We are all feed-up with the piece of crap BG's but to make the statement "tries to rob me of a piece of Bazooka gum" BG will get shot? The main reason I would question the shooting of said BG would not be so-much his interest as it would be in your interest. Each case is always different , but at what "property" do you have that you don't want to loose is worth YOU having to live the rest of your life with end results. If you think life & limb are at risk---2 shots center-mass. Otherwise maybe not shooting?? Not trying to cause any stress with you, most gun people are the cream of crop and I imagine that you also fall under that catigory

[peacefuljeffrey]

SleepingZ, my point is that what is important is that there is a person standing before you, threatening to hurt or kill you unless you give him what he demands; and even then he might still hurt or kill you--that kind of thing is seeming to be more and more in the news lately.

So I don't care what I'm being robbed of--only that I'm being robbed. And I know what I plan to do if my safety is threatened, even if it is for a piece of Bazooka gum: I plan to end the threat.

Is that not fair, or something, to the bad guy? Should I seek to use the peaceful path and talk it out with him? Maybe give him some compassion along with my gum and wallet, and hope we can come to an agreement that robbing me is wrong, and go our separate peaceful ways? Or maybe I should simply not mind being threatened with death simply because all I have to steal is a piece of crappy gum?

Once again, it's not what PROPERTY I stand to lose; it's the fact that I stand to lose my LIFE.
Call me crazy, but that's worth shooting someone over.

[OPFOR]

I am FED UP TO HERE with people talking about how this amounts to "shooting someone over 'things' ".

If I am in possession of my things at the time someone is trying to rob me of them, I am defending MYSELF, NOT MY THINGS.

How the hell can you separate the idea of taking the "things" from me from the idea of threatening my life in order to do so?!

If someone tries to rob me of a piece of Bazooka gum, he's getting shot. Why? Because my life is not worth the gamble of hoping that after he gets what he wants from me, he's not going to attempt to take my life. Strike one against him was the fact that he is willing to rob me. That doesn't put into my mind a lot of cause to believe he's a noble, harmless guy. Should it?

Once again, robbery is NOT about THINGS. It's about the PERSON BEING ROBBED.

This isn't "people talking," this is law. It's not my feelings, it is law. It's not my opinion, it is law. Shoot whomever you like, for whatever reasons you like - just be ready to face the legal (not OPFOR created or endorsed) consequences.

Also, I am speaking of property crimes in general, not armed robbery. If someone is stealing your car from a parking lot, you are (generally) legally prohibited from using deadly force. An armed robbery is by definition a violent crime, and you are (again, generally) authorized to use deadly force to prevent one - the idea being that there is an immenent, deadly threat inherent in an armed robbery. The questions will come up, however, when the robbery is over (when it is over will, of course, be different in every case) - is the threat still present?

Believe me, I understand your feelings. But believe this as well - if someone is fleeing after having taken your bubble gum, you had better be able to articulate EXTREMELY well how he was still an immenent and deadly threat, or you'll be looking at a long time in a stripey hole. Again - not my idea, just the realities of the situation.

[Bark'n]

I think it can definitely be a crap shoot either way.

Generally speaking, you are to hold your fire if the threat is over and they are running away. I say generally speaking because there have been more than a few cases just in the last year or two, where it seems store owners in particular have shot those robbing them during the initial escape (BG's running away) from the robbery and yet they have been cleared with no charges filed in their shooting cases.

And then again, others have clearly been charged for shooting people who had already robbed them and were trying to run away.

There really doesn't seem to be any "clear" distinction one way or another (other than how OPFOR presented it) that you can know with any amount of certainty.

My personal feeling, and again, this is only my thoughts... is that as long as they are still in sight of you, they still pose a threat of being able to turn and fire on you without warning at any given moment! (I believe Border Patrol Agents Ramos & Compean believed they were in jeopardy because they described the drug smuggler turned back towards them as he was fleeing with an outstretched arm, as if to shoot them and saw somthing in his hand. And that report seems to be confirmed by the surgeons report who removed the bullet from the smugglers left side, not his back! But look where it got them...)

I feel that once the BG turns a corner or however it is that you lose sight of them, I think you lose the ability of being able to claim to be in immediate jeopardy.

Also I have no idea whether a prosecutor would see things in the same light I do.

I do hope no charges are brought against the store owner. I feel he still had justification based on what I believe to be their ability to still fire on him as they fled, but I can not gurantee the law would agree.

IANAL, JMHO & YMMV! (I hope that makes sense... I'm a little tired right now as I post this)

[SleepingZ]

The main point of my post was not the safety and well-being of BG, could really care less if his body temp is 98.6 or room temp. I would never suggest that you have any converstaion or compassion for perp, what if BG has knife and is leaving do you still shoot?? If your main concern is BG shooting back, after they are leaving should a person put themself in a better tactful position of using cover if possible, also if your not sure what BG might do once he starts to leave, would it be prudent to at that point draw on him so to be ready if he would be stupid enough to try anything or are you just going to toast him. We do not know how the law community will react, and I for one do not want to give up my ccp over a questionable shoot.