Jonathan Turley

Florida gas station store owner Mehedeun Hasan, 22, is facing a charge of attempted murder after shooting Rennie Defor, Jr. as he was trying to steal beer worth $36. It is another example of the common law rule that you cannot protect property with potentially lethal force.

Defoe walked out of the convenience store with three 18-packs of Natural Ice beer to his Toyota Camry. Hasan ran after him with his 61-year-old father. Hasan first run in and grabs a handgun. On this way out, he drops the gun and kicks it.

Hasan shoots at the car and Defoe is hit. Defoe later crashes the car and is taken to a hospital with gunshots to the left arm and chest. Defoe has a criminal record that includes charges of robbery, domestic battery and drug possession.




Link to original video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=...Eik&feature=youtu.be



We have previously discussed this issue of the use of force to protect property (here and here and here and here and here).

Common law cases often involve the use of snare guns to protect property since direct use of force often involve claims of self-defense rather than defense of property. In famous cases like Bird v. Holbrook, 4 Bing. 628, 130 Eng. Rep. 911 (1825), courts have ruled that “[n]o man can do indirectly that which he is forbidden to do directly.” Not only are such devices viewed as immoral (because human life is more valuable than property), but dangerous because such devices cannot tell the difference between friend and foe. The case however also has been cited for the long-standing rule that no property is viewed as more valuable than a human life. That does not mean you cannot take steps to protect your property and a case of protection of property can become protection of self (with the right to use higher levels of force) when the suspect resists or attacks.

The attempted murder charge in this case is higher than some past cases of battery or assault. It is even possible under the common law for a felon to sue for civil damages, though such successful cases are rare. In the famous case of Katko v. Briney, 183 N.W.2d 657 (Iowa 1971), the defendant owned an unoccupied farmhouse left to him by his parents. It was repeatedly broken into despite no trespass signs and boards on the windows. Briney then wired the house with a snare gun and shot Katko. He was found liable. While this case also addresses the common law rule against man traps or snare guns, it was premised on the principle that that no property is worth more than a human life. The court held:

“The intentional infliction upon another of harmful or offensive contact or other bodily harm by a means which is intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily harm, for the purpose of preventing or terminating the other’s intrusion upon the actor’s possession of land or chattels, is privileged if, but only if, the actor reasonably believes that the intruder, unless expelled or excluded, is likely to cause death or serious bodily harm to the actor or to a third person whom the actor is privileged to protect.”

Jurors do not hold much sympathy for shoplifters or burglars suing their victims.

Castle doctrine laws (or “Make My Day” laws) have in some cases been extended to car or businesses. Some are called “Make My Day Better” law. The pursuit of the victim presents a challenged even under some of these laws. We have seen other cases of pursuit that have resulted in criminal charges against the owners.

Link

Didn't get to drink any of that beer, did you, you thievin' son of a bitch? The only thing I see wrong with any of this is that that garbage is still breathing.

I’ve long felt that if thieves thought there was a really good chance they would die while thieving, there would be a lot less of it going on. I have a shit more sympathy for the store owner than the turd, regardless of the law.

Shoot ‘em early, shoot ‘em often!

I'm fairly certain that at least ONE person on the jury will not convict him, regardless of what the law says

quote:

Originally posted by gearhounds:
I’ve long felt that if thieves thought there was a really good chance they would die while thieving, there would be a lot less of it going on. I have a shit more sympathy for the store owner than the turd, regardless of the law.

Agreed.

The thief was sure that the store owner wouldn't shoot him.

oopsie!

That's a lot of useless legalese. How about nice & simple, theives will be beaten senseless or shot.

This is one of those cases where, when the prosecutors overcharge the real victim, that you have to hope the jury will do the right thing and practice a bit of jury nullification.

Edit: Looks like Mike made my point while I was taking forever to type it out.

So, "Possession is 9/10ths of the Law" is constitutional after all?

I remember the 1971 case well, as several friends were in similar situations, owning farm property that they couldn't stand guard over 24/7 and were considering booby-traps.

After the criminal had his legs blown off and sued the landowner, a coalition of neighbors bought the property in an attempt to keep Stumpy from gaining control of it, so Stumpy and the landowner ended up suing the neighbors together.

Sometimes, the law is just plain wrong.

When the judicial system doesn't work, and citizens get tired if being victims.

I've often wondered why we, as a society, are so tolerant of criminal behavior. Present company excluded of course.

Must have been going to a barbecue, but Natural Ice? That could get you shot if you bring it to the party.

Florida is a bit tighter on defense of property than some other states. In Florida, you may only use force to defend property against a "forcible felony".

quote:

“Forcible felony” means treason; murder; manslaughter; sexual battery; carjacking; home-invasion robbery; robbery; burglary; arson; kidnapping; aggravated assault; aggravated battery; aggravated stalking; aircraft piracy; unlawful throwing, placing, or discharging of a destructive device or bomb; and any other felony which involves the use or threat of physical force or violence against any individual.

The crime here is "theft" and it doesn't rise to forcible felony. Hopefully he will get a bit of jury nullification, or prosecutor will plead it down or let it go after a bit.

I hate thieves, and wish death upon them.

In all seriousness, though, had Hasan attended a proper firearms course that included a thorough examination of Florida Statutes Chapter 776 and 782, he would have known that deadly force was in no way justified here. He probably thought it was OK. Prosecutors are always looking for a case like this to define limits to use of force. Hasan will be used as an example. It will be a crap shoot with the jury.

I am often surprised at student's reaction to being told you can't shoot someone escaping from a simple theft. Non deadly force on the other hand would have been justified under Florida law in this case.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Perhaps Hasan would have been better served to just shoot the tires of this dirtbags vehicle. In the heat of the moment, I'm sure that thought didn't enter his mind. Yeah...I know. Kinda like that "shoot 'em in the leg" mentality...

quote:

Originally posted by ArtieS:
Hopefully he will get a bit of jury nullification, or prosecutor will plead it down or let it go after a bit...

Most likely he will, but will the jury also nullify his legal expenses? Of course not. And he won't have any recourse against those filing the charges, either.

He might as well have a sign outside his store that reads "Free Beer."

Better yet, he should have gone after the thug with a bearing sword.

quote:

Originally posted by newtoSig765:

quote:

Originally posted by ArtieS:
Hopefully he will get a bit of jury nullification, or prosecutor will plead it down or let it go after a bit...

Most likely he will, but will the jury also nullify his legal expenses? Of course not. And he won't have any recourse against those filing the charges, either.

He might as well have a sign outside his store that reads "Free Beer."

Agreed, it sucks. This is one of the reasons to get some training, however. Training and know your local law.

Unless the store owner goes with the public defender, any competent defense attorney will charge around $100,000.00 for that case. Add to that, 10/20/Life, store owner is now facing, as charged, min of 25 years FSP and up to life, if convicted.

Rough going to trial for a jury nullification when the down side is min/man of 25, no way around that for the Judge.

Hindsight being 20/20, rather than grabbing a gun, store owner should have grabbed a pen and paper, got the tag and called the police. (wonder where the rounds went that didn't hit the car.....?)

While this is not legal advice, Texas statutes do permit the use of deadly force to protect your own property, and even the property of others.

Which is why Ahmed the Stop-N-Go owner shoots about five or six thieves in Houston a year. That, and no one here doubts that the thief (and most of them are armed) is likely to try to hurt you, so it is also self-defense.