Disclaimer Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 What do you guys think? Agree, disagree??http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/30/florida.shooting.law/index.html MIAMI, Florida (CNN) -- Authorities do not plan to file charges against a Florida orange grove owner who fatally shot a 21-year-old woman, saying he is protected under the state's controversial "no retreat" law.Bullet holes pocked the windshield of the crashed SUV, and blood stained he passenger seat. But the woman's boyfriend faces second-degree murder charges in her death, because the woman was shot to death during an alleged felony -- the theft of an SUV. Tony Curtis Phillips, 29, didn't fire a single shot. He didn't even know his girlfriend, Nikki McCormick, was dead until police showed him an online news story. Police said McCormick accompanied Phillips as he attempted to steal the SUV from a barn in an orange grove near Wahneta, Florida, before daylight Tuesday. Grove owner Ladon "Jamie" Jones opened fire as the SUV approached him, according to an affidavit released by the Polk County Sheriff's Office. Phillips fled; McCormick was shot in the head and later died. Authorities said Jones is protected by Florida's "no retreat" law, which gives him the right to use lethal force if he reasonably believes his life is in danger. Phillips, however, faces charges because police allege he was committing felony grand theft auto at the time of McCormick's death. "Because his conduct caused her death, he gets charged with a felony," Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd said. Phillips was arrested late Tuesday in Polk County, near Lakeland, after a day on the run. Police said he didn't believe McCormick was dead at first, telling officers, "Of all the times you've questioned me, this is a nasty trick you're playing on me this time." He agreed to cooperate if detectives could prove she was dead. Judd said detectives called up the shooting story on the local newspaper's Web site and "let him read it online, and that's when he broke down and cried, and gave us a confession," Judd said. According to the affidavit, Jones heard his Toyota Land Cruiser, parked in the barn at his orange grove, start up before daylight Tuesday. Jones told police he grabbed his gun, a 9mm that he keeps with him while working at the grove. He said he could see two people in the SUV as it backed out of the barn, according to the affidavit. He said he saw the passenger's arm reach outside the vehicle, and believed that person might be holding a gun. The Land Cruiser stopped directly in front of him, Jones said in the affidavit. He said he raised his gun and pointed it at the occupants, shouting "Stop," but the vehicle appeared to be moving directly toward him. "Fearing for his life, he then fired what he thought to be six to eight rounds into the front windshield of the vehicle," the affidavit stated. The vehicle backed up at high speed, crashed through a fence and ended up in a ditch. Jones told police a man jumped out of the SUV and ran away. Sheriff's deputies found McCormick inside the vehicle with a bullet wound to her head. She was taken to Lakeland Regional Medical Center, where she died. Jones did not return a call from CNN seeking comment. Authorities will forward their information to prosecutors, Judd said, but are "not going to file any charges [against Jones] at this point, because we don't see any reason to arrest Mr. Jones," Judd said. "... It appears, at this point in the investigation, Mr. Jones was completely, legally justified in his actions." A Polk County judge on Thursday ordered Phillips held without bond. A public defender was appointed to his case. Polk County Public Defender J. Marion Moorman declined to comment on the charges to CNN. "We will, of course, be interviewing the client very soon, and will be undertaking his defense from there," he said. Phillips told police he assumed McCormick had also gotten out of the vehicle and run away, according to the affidavit. He said he was sorry for what happened "and said he knew he was partially responsible for her death," the affidavit said. Polk County State Attorney's Office spokesman Chip Thulberry said his office will review the case when the sheriff's investigation is completed. The Brady Campaign to prevent Gun Violence says Florida is one of 16 states that have enacted "no retreat" laws, which some call "shoot-first" laws. The laws extend the right to use deadly force beyond a person's home and into public places. "The shoot-first law is not needed," said Brian Malte of the Brady Campaign. "This person, regardless of the situation, may have done the right thing, but he cannot be prosecuted for doing something wrong if he hit an innocent bystander," he said. Other groups stand by the "no retreat" laws. "At the moment a crime occurs, victims don't have the luxury of time," said Andrew Arulanandam of the National Rifle Association. "They have seconds to decide on a course of action to protect their lives and their families. This law provides law-abiding people with options." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DollFace Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 Sucks that she is dead, but he is protected under the law. I am sure he didn't have any intentions to kill anyone, maybe just injure them or something. Committing a crime like grand theft auto is dumb enough and she should have known better than to accompany her retarded boyfriend. What else can I say. Life sucks...then you die. I am harshly truthful.Edit: Sorry...forgot to say I agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdruggan10r Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 Yeah, I agree. Maybe there would be less crime if jack ass felons think someone might perforate the nuggut a few times if they try to steal their stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DLN1223 Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 +1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shayne636 Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 Sucks he didn't shoot the driver too. Totally agree. I miss the days of the fleeing felon rule (permits the use of force, including deadly force, against an individual who is suspected of a felony and is in clear flight. Force may be used by the victim, bystanders, or police officers. In some jurisprudence failure to use such force was a misdemeanor which could result in a fine or imprisonment.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smashweights Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 (edited) Yeah, I agree. Maybe there would be less crime if jack ass felons think someone might perforate the nuggut a few times if they try to steal their stuff.Agreed. I hate seeing victims of crime getting shit for fighting back, even if it may seem excessive to others. I'd bet >90% of the ppl on this forum would take a shot at someone they caught trying to jack their bikes if afforded the opportunity. But more importantly, IMO, laws permitting them to do so would hopefully seriously deter crime. There can only be so many official police officers...It seems like it sucks that she's the one that died, but I'm not exactly sure why the article paints her as "accompanying" him as if she was a bit of a bystander. She tresspassed, broke into the barn?, and participated in stealing the vehicle. Just cause she wasn't driving it off doesn't make her any less responsible in my eyes. But the boyfriend shouldnt be charged with her death as if he shot her or even forced her to be there. Edited May 2, 2009 by smashweights Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flounder Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 +1 for the good guy.. I would like to give him +2 but the driver is unfortunately still alive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd#43 Posted May 2, 2009 Report Share Posted May 2, 2009 State law states no retreat. Don't drive at someone with a car. In Ohio this guy would be fucked but' date=' as the article states, this ain't Ohio. Just like in Texas where you are allowed to kill somebody for attempting to steal your car. Not allowed in Ohio, but Texas ain't Ohio. I'm all about it. Too bad he didn't kill the driver, as well. [/quote']Ummmm.....the "Castle Doctrine" was passed in Ohio last month...http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/5722 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balaormiga Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 Yea..the shooter would be screwed in Ohio. It would be hard to prove his life was in danger and he had no other option, given he did not have to stand in front of the vehicle.I don't think someone should be killed for stealing. I do not think the shooter should be prosecuted either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smashweights Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 It is my very strong opinion that I should be allowed to shoot anybody trying to steal my property.+1, if you dont wanna risk getting shot, dont steal ppl's shit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosmo Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 Why don't people vote for amendment...... of capital punishment for stealing.....no confusions....you steal....you die.....either by a bullet (from the owner or by law) many countries have even capital punishment for drug possession too....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattKatz Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 I don't think someone should be killed for stealing. I do not think the shooter should be prosecuted either.SO exactly what does this guy deserve?If he was stealing your bike....WOuld you still say this?I think if more peopel knew that everyday citizens aren't going to stand for this , and that the law would actually punish criminals.....Then maybe less crimes would be committed.But until we, in the states, learn how to actually strike fear into the minds of criminals....they will continue to do what they want knowing that at most they MAY get a Short sentence or even better yet.....They may be able to plea out of it.The system is soo flawed its not funny.I just had this very discussion the other day with the GF and we both agree that the things done to criminals in other countries(Asia for example) if how you get a message across.Do wrong....and you will remember it....FOr the REST OF YOUR LIFE./Story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4DAIVI PAI2K5 Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 It is my very strong opinion that I should be allowed to shoot anybody trying to steal my property.+1' date=' if you dont wanna risk getting shot, dont steal ppl's shit[/quote']agree!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadMax33 Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 So a female piece of human trash gets shot while stealing what someone worked hard for, ah, boo...hoo. I would love to be able to deal with someone on my own, who was stealing my bike or even my car, which I don't really care for, without a liberal judge letting that person get off with a slap on the wrist. When some asshole can say they put the hours in that I have over many years to earn what is mine then perhaps they don't deserve to be destroyed for taking what I have earned. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd#43 Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 Doesn't mean you can shoot them if you aren't in it. In Texas' date=' if someone is breaking into your car and you are inside the house you can come out and shoot them. That is NOT allowed in Ohio. (yet, anyway)[/quote']I had a discussion with a municipal judge last week. He seems to think that the Castle Doctrine makes it perfectly acceptable to pop a cap in someone breaking into your car.There's a lot of room for interpretation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdruggan10r Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 It's judges who make the decisions that help shape laws as we know them. Granted, a municipal judge has no jurisdiction over a felony; however, all felonies begin in a municipal court before being bound over in common pleas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
balaormiga Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 It is my very strong opinion that I should be allowed to shoot anybody trying to steal my property.I understand. However, what if after the fact you found out the person you shot, was in fact ,someone that had fallen on hard times, needed to feed his family, and simply lacked good judgement.As opposed to a drug addict or say someone simply stealing because they were too lazy to work etc.Would you shoot to kill or maim, assuming you had the skill and opportunity to choose?I had my car broken into and robbed, several times over a period of a week or so. Had I been able to I probably would have tried to beat the crap out of the person but not sure I would shoot even if it was legal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattKatz Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 Well..I am with you on beating them....but I will be damned if I let someone take advantage of me or my family by committing crimes against me if I have the opportunity to shoot them If I feel threatened.....and your case makes that even easier to want to do.....Multiple times in one week...They desrve to be shot....In the knee at a minimum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goldie Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 I agree. It sucks she is dead, and it is a shame that the BF didn't catch a stray one in the head. She shouldn't have been with him in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AOW Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 Yeah, I agree. Maybe there would be less crime if jack ass felons think someone might perforate the nuggut a few times if they try to steal their stuff. bet he now has the safest orange grove in the country! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smashweights Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 I understand. However, what if after the fact you found out the person you shot, was in fact ,someone that had fallen on hard times, needed to feed his family, and simply lacked good judgement.As opposed to a drug addict or say someone simply stealing because they were too lazy to work etc.Would you shoot to kill or maim, assuming you had the skill and opportunity to choose?The reason they're stealing doesnt justify it at all. I mean, you can kill for money to feed your family too if someone's willing to pay for it. And I think you should always shoot to kill. You maim them and you've probably got an exponentially higher risk of having some type of lawsuit or legal action coming back on you from the person you shoot. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd#43 Posted May 3, 2009 Report Share Posted May 3, 2009 We'll have to see. It's really difficult to speculate since the new law hasn't been tested in court' date=' yet. I'm all for it but I don't think it's that cut and dry. You are correct about lots of room for interpretation. That's a serious pet peeve of mine when it comes to Ohio's gun laws. Not enough specificity.[/quote']I probably should have said that this particular muni judge is not known for his conservative approach when it comes to gun laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdruggan10r Posted May 4, 2009 Report Share Posted May 4, 2009 It all comes down to this, criminals thrive on the fears of their victims. The day things change is when the criminals become uneasy because victims no longer live in fear. That is the when society enacts laws that favor the "victims". Concealed carry is the start. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosmo Posted May 4, 2009 Report Share Posted May 4, 2009 It all comes down to this, criminals thrive on the fears of their victims. The day things change is when the criminals become uneasy because victims no longer live in fear. That is the when society enacts laws that favor the "victims". Concealed carry is the start.on the other hand that may be the difference between "mugged at gunpoint" and "mugged after gunned down" like in South Africa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bdruggan10r Posted May 4, 2009 Report Share Posted May 4, 2009 Ask a trained police officer We are not alone!!!!!!!!on the other hand that may be the difference between "mugged at gunpoint" and "mugged after gunned down" like in South Africa Well, I don't believe in strong laws of gun control that disarm the general public. I hate signs that say "No concealed weapons permited" That just tells that bad guys that no law abiding citizens will have them if you want to rob the place. Same with colleges that do not allow concealed weapons on campuses if the person has a legal permit. Oh well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.