Monday, May 4, 2009

Ladon Jones' Justified Shooting

CNN reports today on the case of Ladon Jones, the Florida orange grower whom we spoke about last week. It seems the local prosecutors are sticking by their original take on the situation, that he was justified under Florida's "no retreat" law.

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."

In our discussions the other day about this case and others like it, we all seemed to agree that if a criminal is using a car as a deadly weapon and the only way for someone to save themselves is to shoot at that vehicle, then whatever happens is justified. I say that's an extremely unlikely set of circumstances. You see it in the movies all the time, but in real life I'd say it's extremely rare.

In today's CNN story it says Mr. Jones heard the sound of his SUV being started in the barn. He grabbed his gun and went out to investigate.

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.


I wonder if he shot because he thought the passenger had a gun or because the vehicle "appeared to be moving directly toward him." But a moment before that it had stopped, according to his affidavit.

I doubt it was either one. I think he shot because someone dared to take what was his, because someone had the audacity to steal from him. I fear many gun owners have this exaggerated sense of proprietary rights. I say they're exaggerated. I say it's not right to shoot bullets into someone's head because they're stealing something from you. I say it's not right to kill someone on your property and then stumble around for a justification, "they seemed to have a gun", the car "appeared to be moving towards me". And, finally, I don't think it's right for other gun owners and the State of Florida itself to support this shabby behaviour which is nothing other than vigilantism.

What's your opinion? Do you think Florida may be trying to be hard on criminals with laws like these? Do you think killing someone for stealing from you is justified even if your life is not threatened?

Please leave a comment.

24 comments:

  1. And here's where we part ways, I suppose. Your idea of "an exaggerated notion of property rights" suggests that you've never had to deal with having what little property you own taken from you unjustly.
    Trust me, it's worse than you think.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What level of force should be justified to stop someone from stealing your property?

    Does the value of the property make a difference?

    If the thief escalates the violence, can you defend, or must you retreat?

    ReplyDelete
  3. MikeB - In this case the "no retreat" law was irrelevant. Why? Every single "no retreat" law I've seen applies to duty to retreat IN PUBLIC, it has nothing to do with retreating from assault in ones home.

    For example, here in DE we have no such "no retreat" law. If I'm attacked in public here I must attempt to retreat (if possible) before using force in self-defense. If I'm attacked in my home (as this man was) "no retreat" doesn't apply.

    As far as the Brady's claim that he "can't be prosecuted for hitting an innocent bystander." Bullshit. "Stand your ground" laws don't give you immunity for your actions.

    Do you think killing someone for stealing from you is justified even if your life is not threatened?Yes, I do. I think you are legally justified in using deadly force to stop the commission of a forcible felony.

    This criminal made a choice to attempt to steal the SUV, and when he had a gun pointed at him and a man telling him to stop and not move he should have listened.

    Were it not for his choice to commit a felony his friend would still be alive today.

    ReplyDelete
  4. MikeB,

    You have your narrative confused.
    You say:
    I wonder if he shot because he thought the passenger had a gun or because the vehicle "appeared to be moving directly toward him." But a moment before that it had stopped, according to his affidavit.Yes, the SUV stopped by read again
    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.It stopped directly in front of him, then he ordered them to stop...and after or during that time frame he determined that it was moving toward him. So, car stops, he yells, car starts moving again, he fires to PROTECT HIS LIFE.

    I wonder if he shot because he thought the passenger had a gun or because the vehicle "appeared to be moving directly toward him."Sounds like both, who would ever imagine crooks might actually carry firearms, eh? Who would imagine that crooks might run over someone trying to stop them from stealing, eh?


    I doubt it was either one.You doubt much, but prove little. Provide some evidence

    I think he shot because someone dared to take what was his, because someone had the audacity to steal from him.Interesting how you can determine his state of mind and perception of the situation from Italy. Have you ever been involved in a crime?

    Maybe you should talk to a few folks that have before you keep running off.

    And second, even if he shot because they had the audacity to break the law, take what they didn't work for, take what could be his means of making a living...so what?

    When a criminal breaks the law, they take risks. They decide what they are willing to risk. The owner pointed a gun at them and gave a lawful command which they failed to follow.

    Aren't you one of the ones saying if someone points a gun at you in a robbery you should do what they say because it is safer, because you won't get shot?

    I fear many gun owners have this exaggerated sense of proprietary rights.Care to explain this a little more. what is the difference between property rights and an "exaggerated sense of proprietary rights"?

    Are you saying what is mine is mine unless someone who didn't earn it, didn't buy it wants it?

    ReplyDelete
  5. This case is not about defense of property. Jones did not fire in defense of property, but in defense of his life or sbi.

    The standard for using force for my physical safety is different than my property.

    In defense against sbi or death, I may use deadly force.

    If someone is merely stealing my motor vehicle, I may not use deadly force, unless the thief decides to run me down with my own SUV. The thief will then be shot.

    Shootin' Buddy

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hey Mike, Catherine called you "pro-gun."

    http://catherinemacivor.com/2009/04/29/guns-barack-obama-paranoia-who-is-tyrannizing-who/#comments

    I guess it's all a matter of perspective eh?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Bob says, "And second, even if he shot because they had the audacity to break the law, take what they didn't work for, take what could be his means of making a living...so what?"Is that your answer to my question? I asked you if you're OK with taking someone's life for attempting to steal from you?

    I find this one of the many hidden problems in the gun culture. Of course that's not OK. Any reasonable person will tell you that. But a lot of you guys will spin long explanations about the criminals making choices and how they asked for it and all that.

    This is exactly how the supposed DGUs are often quite the opposite of what they're purported to be.

    About supplying evidence for the claim that I suspect Mr. Jones of this kind of thing, I remind you we're not investigators or legislators, we're just guys reading the internet and talking about it.

    I suspect Jones of that, yes. And I suspect many of you would do the same in a fury of indignation that some bum would dare to penetrate your personal domain. Immediately after the killing, you'd do exactly what I suspect Jones did. You'd construct a plausible story that would support your having used the gun in self defense.

    Now, Bob, instead of acting all personally offended and calling me names, add something to the discussion. Would you do what Jones did? What if in the moment after firing you realized there really was no lethal threat? Would you report that part? Or would you be inventive knowing that the guy you killed was a worthless criminal and you're a good guy? How would that work exactly?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Mike - I don't know about Bob, but I'd be an emotional wreck and not in the condition to be telling the cops ANYTHING until the shock had worn off and I had my attorney present.

    ReplyDelete
  9. MikeB,

    Is that your answer to my question? I asked you if you're OK with taking someone's life for attempting to steal from you? I have medicine that I must take daily to control a medical condition. Is it acceptable to use lethal force to prevent the theft of that medicine?

    My father kept an oxygen concentrator and oxygen tanks in his car, because his life depended on that oxygen. Is it okay to use lethal force to prevent the theft of that property?

    Many people depend on their cars to make a living, as transportation to a job or as the means -- a plumber having his tools and equipment in the truck.

    Is it acceptable to use lethal force to be able to continue earning a living?

    If you think the laws allowing lethal force in defense of property are wrong, change the laws. Don't condemn people for exercising their rights to the fullest extent of the law.

    And I suspect many of you would do the same in a fury of indignation that some bum would dare to penetrate your personal domain.I think you are projecting psychologically again. Why do so many anti-gun folks like you ascribe anger/hatred/rage to those who are pro-gun. Nothing in my statements, my actions, my beliefs has ever show that type of anger. But repeatedly you try to ascribe it to pro-gun folks. Maybe it is what you would feel, not what I would feel.

    I remind you we're not investigators or legislators, we're just guys reading the internet and talking about it.No MikeB, pro-gunners are talking about it, you are accusing the home owners, the police, the district attorneys, the grand juries of lying about the defensive gun uses and committing conspiracy to cover it up.

    If you are accusing people of crimes (as you have repeatedly done) then it is up to you to show evidence to support your claim. Read the laws concerning libel, eh.

    Would you do what Jones did? First, let's look at a definition from Mirriam Webster Online
    Violence -1 a: exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in warfare effecting illegal entry into a house) b an instance of violent treatment or procedure2: injury by or as if by distortion, infringement, or profanation Is stealing a violent a violent act? Not according the law, but it is morally an act of violence.

    So, we have a moral act of violence. Then we have a home owner confronting the criminals in their illegal act -- a moral act. Then criminal fail to obey the law, fail to obey reason & common sense -- i.e. obeying someone pointing a gun at you. Then we have criminals allegedly -and otherwise substantiated -initiating a violent act - running over said lawful home owner.

    How would I act? I would also fire because I wanted to a) protect my life and b) stop a violent felony crime in progress.

    What if in the moment after firing you realized there really was no lethal threat?I would regret that criminals created a situation where such a misunderstanding existed. But the onerous would on the criminals, not I.

    THEY, not I, decided to steal my car.

    THEY, not I, decided to act in a manner making me fear my life.

    At any point they could have made a different decision that wouldn't have lead to a shooting. Right?

    Would you report that part?Yes, I would report it. I would also expect to be cleared of any charges. The law doesn't require a person to know the future, but act on the reasonable perception of what is going on.

    Or would you be inventive knowing that the guy you killed was a worthless criminal and you're a good guy? How would that work exactly?Hey MikeB, ever hear of a new science called FORENSICS?

    People don't have to lie about protecting themselves from the criminal actions of others. That is wrong, the evidence would show it. Police are bound to investigate all shootings. Oh, I forgot, you think the police on it on it also. Guess most everyone else in the world is corrupt except for you anti-gun people, eh?


    Now, MikeB. What would you do if someone was in your car and seemed ready to run you over?

    What would you do if someone was in your house, in between you and your children's rooms? Would you let him/her run away?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Grist for the mill MikeB,

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,518779,00.html


    SAN BERNARDINO, Calif. — Investigators were searching Monday for a 3-year-old boy kidnapped by two gunmen who broke into his family's home, tied up his mother and his four siblings, and stole property, authorities said.

    The California Highway Patrol issued an Amber Alert late Sunday for 3-year-old Briant Rodriguez, about nine hours after he was taken from his San Bernardino home.

    The men, each carrying a handgun, burst through the front door, tied up the woman and the five children, then ransacked the house and stole money and other property, sheriff's spokeswoman Cindy Beavers said.

    Beavers said the boy's father was at work at the time.

    The men left with Briant, telling the still-bound mother and the other children not to call police.

    One of the children freed himself and untied the rest of the family, Beavers said. She did not know the ages of the rest of the children but said she believed Briant was the youngest.
    I think that trusting criminals to only steal property may not be such a hot idea, what about you?

    ReplyDelete
  11. About supplying evidence for the claim that I suspect Mr. Jones of this kind of thing, I remind you we're not investigators or legislators, we're just guys reading the internet and talking about it.And yet apparently YOU know more about the case (and Mr. Jones' intentions) than the prosecutors and police who actually know what they're talking about.

    If what you are claiming was in anyway backed up by any evidence whatsoever (other than your "feelings,") then the AG's office (you know, the ones with the evidence) would not have labeled this justifiable homicide.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Mike - In your last comment you just insinuated that we're all just cold-blooded murderers waiting for our chance to off someone, and yet you have the gall to tell Bob S. not to get personally offended.

    Also Mike, my property is just that, mine. If we live in your world, where private property cannot be defended by force then we effectively surrender our property to the 1st immoral thug who decides he wants what someone else has, and is willing to take it by force.

    ReplyDelete
  13. You asked if it's OK to shoot someone trying to steal from you... No, it's not. However, suppose you depend on your possessions for your livlihood, such as a very expensive set of tools. If these are gone, then your ability to make a living and feed your family are threatened. Myabe not your life, but your life as you know it...

    Legally, that still doesn't necessarily make it OK to shoot... But it certainly puts you in the frame of mind to want to shoot...

    You seem to think that simiply calling the police will make everything alright... But that may still not get your tools back...

    Just food for thought...

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Do you think killing someone for stealing from you is justified even if your life is not threatened?"

    Here is the way I look at it:

    Elephant trainers may get attacked by elephants. That's an occupational hazard because elephants are naturally dangerous. Linemen may get electrocuted. That's an occupational hazard, because electricity is naturally dangerous. Thieves may get shot. That's an occupational hazard as well, because theft is naturally dangerous.

    Since the dawn of humanity, being a thief has always been a dangerous job. Even before we had written laws, thieves were subject to meeting a violent end. And it will continue to be that way until the end of humanity.

    So it's not a question of justification. The defense of property is as much of an unavoidable part of human nature as the theft of it.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Mike W., Lighten up will ya. I'm not insinuating that ALL of you are anything. I am saying that SOME of you are the trigger happy type, for lack of a better term.

    If what I say doesn't apply to you, why do you get so defensive? Do you deny that type exists? How many are they? Same questions to you, Bob.

    ReplyDelete
  16. MikeB,

    BUNKI'm not insinuating that ALL of you are anything.No, you cover yourself quite while saying that "many" of us would do they same.

    You remind me of a little kid saying hurtful things to his friends, when called on it by adults he responds "But I was only JOKING."

    You asked what I would do and I answered.

    What would you do Mikeb?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Going back to the original post, there are a few things going on in this case that are tied together.

    First, Florida's stand-your-ground law only covers one specific part of this confrontation. It says that if Jones had good reason to believe the criminals were threatening him with death or serious injury, he can't be prosecuted for using deadly force. It deals _only_ with the moment that he says the car was moving toward him and he thought he saw a gun. He may be lying about those two things, but that wouldn't be meaningfully different from saying he'd tried to retreat but they kept coming. All laws based on a person's "reasonable belief" are vulnerable to perjury. I don't thing the no-retreat law is actually relevalnt here.

    The two things we're really arguing about are whether you have a right--legal or moral--to confront a thief _without_ using force (on the face of the case, Jones didn't just walk out and shoot the thieves; he told them to stop and fired when they escalated the confrontation to deadly force), and whether you have a right to use deadly force to prevent a serious crime.

    First off, I think it's absurd to claim that a property owner must run and hide when somebody tries to steal his property, on the ground that the thief might turn violent and get hurt. This is why we're so concerned with personal responsibility and inherent risks. If somebody's sneaking around trying to steal my car, I consider it right and proper to turn on the outside lights and shout "Hey! Stop that!". If, instead of running away, the thief actually tries to murder me rather than give up my car, I consider it right and proper to defend my life with force. If Jones is telling the truth, this is basically how the story in question played out.

    On the matter of using force to stop a forcible felony, I honestly don't know; it's a dicey question. It's a simple legal question: Florida explicitly recognizes the common-law right to use deadly force in preventing a felony. Whether it _should_ is another matter.

    For me, this seems pretty closely entwined with the "shared responsibility" concept we've been discussing. If a person can be considered partially responsible for a crime because he didn't take steps to make that crime harder to commit (like locking his car), isn't it a very small philosophical step to expecting--or at least _allowing_-- people to take action to prevent crimes that they see happening?

    ReplyDelete
  18. I'm proud to come from a State which has abolished the death penalty and has a law against shooting someone for stealing your property. That's an enlightened state of affairs.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I understand that you think this is about killing to protect property. I'm interested in where you think the line is. I was trying to establish that with the questions I asked above.

    What level of force is justified to stop property theft?

    If you are stopping a thief, do you retain the right of self defense if the thief credibly threatens your life?

    ReplyDelete
  20. MikeB,

    How is a home owner to know if a who has trespassed onto private property, broken into a private residence/building, entered said building, stole property IS ONLY going to steal things and not assault, rape or murder the law abiding owner and or family?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Bob - I've always been of the opinion that if someone has forcibly entered another person's home / place of business you should treat them as an immediate threat. I think that's a prudent, logical assumption.

    I mean hell, it's not like they broke in just to hang out & have some milk & cookies.

    ReplyDelete
  22. quote-- "For me, this seems pretty closely entwined with the "shared responsibility" concept we've been discussing" --quote

    As a side note, that concept is a key part of the Napoleonic law codes of France, Mexico, Vietnam, some Middle Eastern, and many African nations.

    Our law seems to have the concpet to a far lesser degree, and then perhaps only unofficially.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Sevesteen, I have no moral problem with killing someone in self-defense. I don't know if I could do it, but I wouldn't judge someone guilty for doing it, as long as there really was a lethal threat. I personally feel the likelihood of that happening is so low that I don't keep weapons around "just in case" it does happen. I know you feel differently. The problem with your way is that you're contributing to the general problem which has become acute. You, yes you, as a personal individual gun owner are contributing because you (1 person) are multiplied by 50 or 80 million.

    The problems have been talked to death on this blog, but just to sum up. Besides the accidents and suicides and thefts that happen with the lawfully owned guns, many of which would simply not happen if the gun were not available, you've got the question at hand, the justified or unjustified shooting of a thief, burglar, home invader, etc.

    The fact that you're armed and ready for that most unlikely event, the lethal threat upon your life, means that you're also available, if you will, for that slightly more likely event of doing an unjustified shooting of one of these criminals. This is what I think Ladon Jones did.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I wasn't asking about self defense, I was asking about lesser amounts of violence to stop lesser crimes.

    How much physical force is moral to use in stopping a car theft?

    ReplyDelete