Sheriff: Law protects SUV owner who shot, killed woman

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.

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.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/30/florida.shooting.law/index.html

Personally this is one reason I'm in favor of "No Retreat" laws. I've read of cases in states without this law where overzealous DA's have gone after the innocent person.

Now I'm not excusing things like shooting a repro man.

independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."

Last fall some little shit stole a pumpkin off our porch and smashed it in the street. I wish I could have shot the little puke in the head as he ran away (on edit: oops, I mean headed straight for me) but CT doesn't have a no retreat law so I had to endure his sarcastic laughter instead.

I know the damned DA would probably have charged me with some ridiculous "crime" like "murder" or something. I mean what the fuck, we're talking about theft, destruction of private property and trespassing? I would have cleaned the brains and blood off the street.

:sarcasm: smiley put there just because sometimes people can't see it no matter how blatent I think it is.

Not work on dull people....

Florida's use-of-force law as it applies to this case is the same as it is in California or most other states. Bringing up the quirky "turn and run when somebody is trying to kill you" statute that Florida used to have is a red herring, since most states don't have such statutes. And in any state, if a felon makes out like they're going to run you down with your own SUV, you can shoot to stop them.

he could have killed me with it by smashing it over my head causing me to drown/suffocate in the goopy pumpkin guts. Then probably he would have raped my wife before killing her and the kids. I feel more than justified in wanting to kill that damned pumpkin smasher! His laughter haunts my dreams.

again :sarcasm: just cause.

if you shot someone threatening you with a pumpkin in Florida, you'd go to jail for manslaughter at best, second-degree murder at worst.

The legal standard in Florida is the same as it is everywhere else---a reasonable perception that someone else's illegal assault places you in imminent danger of death, serious bodily harm, or a forcible felony.

Self defense 101:



Note that all four conditions must generally be met in order for a shooting to be ruled justifiable (although there is an exception for someone kicking your door in, or in some states, someone violently attacking you while you are in your vehicle).

Reasonable belief does *NOT* mean merely "feeling threatened"; the phrase is a legal term, and its definition in the context of self-defense law is that in paragraph (b) above--i.e., that "the facts and circumstances prompting that belief would cause a person of ordinary firmness to believe deadly force WAS necessary to prevent an imminent threat of death, great bodily harm, or sexual assault." Merely "feeling threatened" isn't reasonable belief; the belief has to be objectively rational, i.e. there is in fact a guy standing in front of you holding what appears to be a knife in a threatening posture.

A felon looking like he's trying to run you down with your own SUV meets that standard; a kid running with a pumpkin does not.

You see it wouldn't be reasonable to assume that someone with a pumpkin posed an immediate threat to your life. It would be reasonable to assume that someone driving towards you during the commission of a felony had the intent to do you serious bodily harm.

story.

You're regurgitating bullshit propaganda that people who oppose Castle Doctrine laws often use.

It's not about valuing life over property. The purpose of self-defense according to the Florida law is to protect life.

From the article:

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....

...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.

Underlining added for emphasis.

23 year old grad student attempting to run down a police officer, my neighbor, her 13 year old daughter, and myself. He was pissed because I was having his SUV towed off my property and he had to pay the tow truck driver to release the thing. We all managed to move ourselves out of the way without firing a shot.

It was fun to watch 6 police cars chase him and his girlfriend around the town before he was jailed.

:hi:

cursing driver wouldn't have made us think our lives and limbs were in any way threatened.

The manner in which you dealt with the situation doesn't prove your superior courage, only that you chose another option. Had you and/or the others been injured or worse, perhaps deadly force would seem appropriate in hindsight.

Sorry, I'll stick to the movies.

The guy who shot the girl said the SUV was coming at him when he fired.
Then the SUV backed away through a fence and into a ditch before the driver jumped and ran, thinking his girlfriend was also running.

If the girl was shot while the car was still moving forward, don't you think the driver might have noticed? I should think that someone less than three feet away being shot in the head would be noticeable.

The driver somehow didn't notice.

I suggest the shooter started firing at the car as it was backing up, when the driver was looking over his shoulder - that is the only way the driver might not have seen her getting shot. That being the case, the driver was in full retreat, therefore the shooting is unjustified.

It was murder.

In that kind of situation, the driver likely had his adrenal glands going full bore. Like 20/20 suggested, in situations like these peripheral vision is sacrificed so the individual has a greater ability to focus straight ahead. She likely never uttered a sound after being hit, so the driver has no reason to think she wasn't doing as he was. Its a terrible situation all the way around, no doubt. But I don't see the owner as doing anything wrong.

The Castle Doctrine is good law. I'm glad its in OH.

Police response for me is 30 minutes nominally. They openly admit they can't do much for me out here. Castle Doctrine would have made a couple of situations much more straight forward.

to defend yourself.

It was 'castle doctrine' before there was 'castle doctrine'.

I am in neither place, but am out in the country. I always call 911 before I do anything these days. Its seem to be a big deal to our city boy country prosecutor. Sheriff is pretty cool especially since I am 30 minutes from help. Since I put in the heavy gates, I have had less need for that, though the recent repo man episode is the stuff of legend.

You were not there.

The police found no reason to arrest man employing self defense.
The DA found no reason to charge the man employing self defense.

However you not being there and based on incomplete information "KNOW" it is murder.

Ever occur to you that sometimes felons lie?
Ever occur to you to take word of citizen defending himself over a criminal?

Nope. Of course not.

_______________________________________________
"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.
_______________________________________________


This is a typical mis/disinformation tactic used by the Brady slime. You are NOT protected if you hit a bystander! The Castle doctrine does basically 3 things:
1) you no longer have a duty to retreat first

2) the grounds for when you CAN shoot have been adjusted a bit to favor the shooter where in the past self defense was often an uphill battle as an affirmative defense and

3) you cannot be pursued civilly for a "good" shoot.

Hitting a bystander is NOT a "good" shoot and you can be prosecuted both criminally AND civilly. What do the Brady Bunch have to resort to lies? Why can they not argue the merits of the issue?

I don't understand why those anti-RKBA types believe LEOs to whom government grants the "legal right" to keep and bear arms for self-defense should be treated differently than any law-abiding citizen who has the "natural right" independent of our Constitution to keep and bear arms for self-defense or vice-versa.

felony murder law, at least in my opinion. I understand the desire to charge the surviving thief with everything possible, and I am a big fan of the felony murder law in general. However, in this case the woman is not dead because the boyfriend was stealing the SUV. The woman is dead because she was stealing the SUV; her death is directly related to her attempted felony, not indirectly related to the boyfriend's felony.

simpler scenario:

Dick and jane go to rob the farmer.
Dick is out of sight in the getaway car when Jane kills the farmer.
Dick is guilty of 1st degree murder.

Why wouldn't Dick still be guilty of murder if the farmer kills Jane?


BTW- I agree with the legal notion that anyone who breaks into your house while you are in it is presumed to be willing to kill you. I'm not as certain about anyone who comes onto your property, but in the case of a remote property I can allow that the intent to kill can be presumed. I disagree with the idea that one person can be convicted of a homicide (murder or defensive) that another person actually committed- except in cases where the object of the operation was to kill someone, ie two people agree to kill a third person but only one pulls the trigger.

that is the text book application of the law. When a Good Guy is killed, all the participating Bad Guys are charged.

In your second example, Jane is not dead because Dick participated in the robbery. Jane is dead because Jane participated in the robbery. If Dick was not there, Jane would still be dead due to Jane's actions. The Bad Guys are not responsible for each others deaths because they are each voluntarily participating in the crime, unlike the victims. It is probably a matter of semantics.