At what point is it no longer self-defense?

Status
Not open for further replies.

BogBabe

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
227
Location
Southwest Florida
From the St. Pete Times

The headline seems to imply an anti-self-defense stance (which would be typical of the liberal St. Pete Times), but the shooter who has used his gun 3 times in self-defense is seen in a positive light. It's the evil SUV-wielding citizen who's apparently crossed the line:

At what point is it no longer self-defense?
Two incidents in Tampa raise questions about how far victims of crime can go.


Mechanic Ben Tate keeps a sticker on the door of his auto repair shop. "Sure you can have my gun," it reads. "BULLETS FIRST."

Three times since October 2000, Tate has made good on that promise, pumping slugs from his .357-caliber Magnum into men who have tried to rob him or burglarize his shop on Columbus Drive.

Most recently, just before midnight Thursday, the 63-year-old Tate critically wounded a man with a knife who demanded cash and the keys to his car.

The Tampa Police Department is calling it a case of self-defense. As before, it is unlikely Tate will be charged.

Contrast that with the case of Lawrence Storer, the 33-year-old owner of Sumos Thai restaurant in downtown Tampa. Robbed at gunpoint near midnight Wednesday while he was remodeling the restaurant, Storer jumped into his Ford Explorer and drove after his attacker.

A few blocks later, Storer's truck slammed into the gunman, 24-year-old Shantavious Wilson, who died at the scene. Potential charge for the restaurant owner: first-degree murder.

The two cases raise questions about the sometimes blurry line between legitimate self-defense and Death Wish-style vigilantism. How far can victims legally go in fighting back against criminals, before they become criminals themselves?

Before Wednesday night, it was easy to look at Storer and Wilson and discern which was the model citizen and which the lawbreaker.

Storer, the restaurant owner, is a hard-working small businessman who put in long, late hours at his E Twiggs Street diner. The father of a young child, he has no criminal record in Florida.

Wilson, by contrast, the attacker, had charges on his record for robbery with a weapon, carrying a concealed firearm, and performing a lewd and lascivious act on a child.

"I think jurors are going to be sympathetic to a business owner that has just been victimized in this fashion," said Tampa defense lawyer Eddie Suarez.

But a self-defense argument on Storer's part will be a tough sell, legal experts say. Unlike the case of Tampa mechanic Tate, who has used his .357 against attackers while their crimes were in progress, the robbery of Storer was effectively over when he gave chase.

Storer was "pursuing rather than defending," said Sami Thalji, a Tampa defense lawyer and former prosecutor. "That's probably going to be his biggest problem. If he got in the car with the intent "I'm going to run this guy down,' that could be first-degree murder. You don't have the right to hunt people down."

In general, defense lawyers see two potential strategies that could apply in Storer's case, depending upon the evidence.

To prevail with a self-defense argument, the restaurateur would have to show that he was in danger from the gunman during the chase. If Wilson flashed a gun while he ran, for example, Storer's attorney might argue he had to use deadly force to defend himself.

Another possible claim would be he struck Wilson in the "heat of passion" from the robbery, which could decrease his crime from murder to manslaughter.

Capt. Bob Guidara, spokesman for the Tampa Police Department, said detectives will meet with prosecutors at the Hillsborough State Attorney's Office next week to review whether charges should be filed against Storer.

Guidara said it was not yet clear whether Storer struck Wilson on purpose or accidentally.

Since the truck hit Wilson near the federal courthouse in the 500 block of E Polk Street, investigators are looking into how much surveillance cameras captured of the chase and its culmination.

In deciding Storer's fate at trial, jurors would most likely not learn of Wilson's record as a practiced criminal and would be asked to focus strictly on what happened Wednesday night.

John Fitzgibbons, Storer's attorney, said his client was "just a regular, normal young man trying to run his business, and in seconds he gets thrust into the spotlight. He certainly did not ask to be here."

Fitzgibbons said the restaurateur "went through one of the most terrifying experiences that any human can have" in having a gun pointed at him. "Lawrence is lucky to be alive."

Fitzgibbons added, "This could have been any downtown business person. I've had people call me and say, "There but for the grace of God go I.' "

And at Ben Tate's auto repair shop on Columbus Drive, the thieves seem to keep on coming, despite the threatening door sticker and their dismal luck there.

Tate was changing a car's oil Thursday night when police say Michael E. Garner, a 21-year-old Tampa man, tried to rob him.

Police said Garner held his hand behind his back, implying he had a gun, and threatened to shoot if he didn't get cash and the keys to Tate's car.

Tate shot him once in the chest, and Garner, who had a knife hidden in his waistband but no gun, was taken to Tampa General Hospital. Police said he remained there Friday night but his injuries were no longer life-threatening.

In Oct. 2000, Tate shot a man who tried to break into the shop, sending the man to the hospital in critical condition. The man recovered and was charged with burglary. In February, Tate shot another man who barged into the store, sending him to the hospital in critical condition. Tate was not charged in either case.

"It's me or him," Tate told reporters Friday. "And I am going to try to make sure its him."
 
I think its pretty simple. if your life is threatened then you have the life to defend it by whatever means necessary until it is no longer threatened. If your life isnt in active jeopardy then you arent defending it. What the driver did was simply premeditated murder plain and simple. Having a gun is not a license to clean the gene-pool.
 
Both cases are different of course. The problem is an honest man, or woman, when under stress feels like just telling the truth will justify their actions. That`s why it`s been said over and over, "Shut Up!" Saying nothing but "I need to speak to a lawyer." is not an admission of anything and cannot be construed as anything. Ever hear of a D.A. accusing someone in court of having something to hide because they demanded a lawyer? Not gonna happen.

If you find yourself in either of these situations and you run off at the mouth, it doesn`t matter how sympathetic the police might be, they`re not going to perjure themselves.

In the case of the fellow who ran the thief over, it seems fairly evident what the lawyer`s defense plan is. With a sympathetic jury, he could walk. The problem is that it goes that far. A good lawyer isn`t cheap. Loss of business, civil suits etc. may cause the man to lose more than if he`d shot the BG on the spot.
I understand how the guy feels. He works hard, pays his taxes etc. and some mutt comes along and steals what he`s worked for. My (our) sympathy gets him no points unless we`re on the jury.
 
I think you have to also consider what was stolen. In the days of the old west you'd get hanged for stealing someone's horse because you could very likely be leaving that person to their death. In such a case, chasing down the robber and killing him would be reasonable.

Today, our lives don't hinge on the ability to get around on a horse. However, considering the economy, whether you sleep in a bed or in the street hinges on lots of factors. If someone robs you of your rent money...you may have no choice but to chase them down after arming yourself with a weapon.

I'd think that is why Texas allows you to shoot someone that's running away with your goods (or so I've heard.) So I think it's more complicated than just considering whether your life in your body is being threatened.
 
Greystar, Texas law is rather specific: The fleeing "perp" must, to a rational and prudent person, be reasonably considered an ongoing threat to the community. This would be true for a Bad Guy who has a gun or knife and has used it in a threatening manner.

Art
 
The two cases raise questions about the sometimes blurry line between legitimate self-defense and Death Wish-style vigilantism

Yeah. I can hardly see the difference! :rolleyes:

Other than that, it was a good story.

I wonder if the mechanic should post the news articles about his previous shoots on his front door. Sure beats "no guns!"
 
Greystar, Texas law is rather specific: The fleeing "perp" must, to a rational and prudent person, be reasonably considered an ongoing threat to the community. This would be true for a Bad Guy who has a gun or knife and has used it in a threatening manner.

This makes a lot of sense to me. For example if you were in littleton on that fatefull day i think you would be AOK shooting one of the killers in the back regardless of wether he was activeley shooting at anyone else at that time. In Washington this includes fleeing "felons" who can reasonably be believed to pose a danger to the community. This has been used to nail fugitives (armed or not) in the past. And could MAYBE (big IF) apply to a fleeing armed robber. Although i think such an act is in a moral grey area.
 
In deciding Storer's fate at trial, jurors would most likely not learn of Wilson's record as a practiced criminal and would be asked to focus strictly on what happened Wednesday night.

Frankly, I believe a criminal's history of violence is an integral part of the big picture.

Running armed robbers down with trucks may not be legal; in this case, however, I believe the guy who ran the criminal down should be handled with the greatest possible lenience: give him a ticket for speeding, reckless driving, careless driving, or some such thing.

How many second chances has that criminal received?

I believe the victim should receive one, too.
 
Greystar, Texas law is rather specific: The fleeing "perp" must, to a rational and prudent person, be reasonably considered an ongoing threat to the community. This would be true for a Bad Guy who has a gun or knife and has used it in a threatening manner.

Close, but not always true. PC$9.41(B) says that you are justified in using force against a perp to recover your property either during the occurance of the theft or robbery or *in fresh pursuit after the theft*. Which would have covered the guy in the vechicle if he had been in Texas.
 
A few years ago in Osteen Fla a BG came into a convenience store, shot and killed the owner, and wounded the manager, robbed the store and left. The mgr grabbed a .3567 and went outside and shot the BG they found the BG three days later dead in a cornfield. The mgr was charged and prosecuted on 1rst degree murder charges. I never heard the outcome of the trial.
I think the best this guy can hope for is manslaughter and pray for a sympathetic judge.
At that time at least Fla took a dim view of taking the law into your own hands and a broad view of what that entailed
 
Close, but not always true. PC$9.41(B) says that you are justified in using force against a perp to recover your property either during the occurance of the theft or robbery or *in fresh pursuit after the theft*. Which would have covered the guy in the vechicle if he had been in Texas

Does the term "Using Force" always mean lethal force in Texas? I know in washington you can "use force" to recover property too. Around here that means tackling the guy not shooting him in the back or running over him with a car.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top