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.

Accountability - Part II

The gun violence is so frequent now, even the stories that make the national news, that almost any discussion we have is immediately followed by new and interesting variations.

CNN reports on the shooting death of a female car thief in Florida.

What happened was this: Tony Curtis Phillips, 29, and his girlfriend, Nikki McCormick, 21, decided to break into the garage and steal the SUV of Ladon "Jamie" Jones. When Mr. Jones heard the commotion he came running out of his house with a gun to stop the theft. He stopped it all right, with six or eight shots through the windshield, killing McCormick. Phillips fled and was later arrested.

Now here's where it get's interesting. The owner of the vehicle, Jones is not being charged with anything; Phillips, the fleeing boyfriend is being charged with second-degree murder.

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.

Remember Lillo Brancato? He's the Soprano's actor who was cleared in the death of an off duty policeman but sentenced to 10 years for burglary. In his case, he and the shooter did a crime together and upon being discovered by the next-door neighbor who happened to be a cop, Lillo's partner in crime shot the cop dead. The courts decided Lillo was only guilty of the lesser crimes.

In the Florida case, it seems to be an even greater stretch to charge the boyfriend with murder. What do you think? Is this based upon the same principle of law, the accomplice liability theory?

What do you think about the SUV owner, Ladon Jones and his actions? Supposedly, he saw an arm extended outside the passenger side window which he thought might be a gun about to be raised at him. Also when he tried to stop the vehicle, he says it came directly at him, making the SUV itself a deadly weapon to which he responded with the lethal force which was his right under Florida law.

Wouldn't it have been better if he had stayed in the house and called the police? What is so difficult about accepting that? I can already hear the chorus of constitutionally backed protectors of private property and defenders of personal rights crying out that Jones was correct in what he did and the fault lies completely with the thieves Phillips and McCormick.

What's your opinion? Don't you think a bullet in the brain is a punishment just a little bit severe for car theft? I promised the last time we talked about one of these righteous shootings that I wouldn't compare it to the death penalty, to do so is just too inflammatory, but let's face it, dead is dead. I find the response to this crime disproportionately heavy. What about you?

Please leave a comment.