Bike shop owner who shoots thief after break-in wanted by PD

[Fire-medic]

Boynton Beach FL police and the U.S. Marshals Service's Florida Regional Fugitive Task Force are searching for Aurelio Gabriel Silva, 34, of Boynton Beach.

Business owner fires shots at burglar riding off on stolen motorcycle

The owner of a motorcycle store in Boynton Beach FL shot at least one suspected thief during a brief chase overnight, investigators with the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office said. Chris McGrath has the report.

Silva is the business owner who shot a man he said stole a motorcycle from his store last month. A warrant has been issued for his arrest on charges of attempted first-degree murder with a firearm and carrying a concealed firearm, according to a news release from Boynton Beach police spokeswoman Stephanie Slater.

Silva shot Louis Jason Santos, 32, after Santos and another unidentified man broke into Motorcycle Ave. at 2725 N. Federal Highway, in suburban Delray Beach around 3 a.m. on Oct. 20 and took off on motorcycles, according to Slater.

Santos remains in Delray Medical Center in stable condition.

 

[sdt354]

A thief is high on my list for target practice, and I have zero sympathy for a crook. But, unless they are advancing toward you and armed, it's a hard case against you. This owner will most likely get convicted.

 

[Fire-medic]

I wonder if the thieves came-back after the earlier break-in where they stole a mcy to pick the low-hanging fruit once-again? And, did one of them have the balls to show-up on the stolen bike? I suppose the owner may have shot one in the back as he fled on the bike. Or, if they came riding two-up to leave w/another stolen bike, but were interrupted before they were able to get another bike, and fled riding two-up, it was the passenger who got shot in the back?

Even if the owner is able to avoid being convicted on criminal charges, there is an attorney somewhere who will file a contingency payment civil suit on-behalf of the thief who was shot for tort damages.

 

[dannymax]

Sadly...."There's a lawyer attached to every bullet that leaves your gun"

Of course that only applies to the folks that have something of monetary value to lose....the thugs, slugs & grits can shoot pretty much whoever they want without recourse.

 

[one2dmax]

Hey, as far as I know the bike had a key to his house on it somewhere and he feared that they would come to his house and cause him or his family harm.

Sean

 

[Rusty McNeil]

A thief is high on my list for target practice, and I have zero sympathy for a crook. But, unless they are advancing toward you and armed, it's a hard case against you. This owner will most likely get convicted.

Fortunately in Texas we have a "hot pursuit" law that allows the use of deadly force to protect property if they are caught in the act and there is no "reasonable" expectation that any other means of recovery is available to the victim......it doesn't have to be on your property either, and no fear of life is needed in this instance...



Hot pursuit means just that, ...if you know who has your property AFTER it is stolen and go confront them you'll go to jail.



But catch them running away or loading your stuff or driving away with your stuff and you have a hot pursuit case........conceivably if you had a Lojack system or some other tracking system on your car then you would not have a "reasonable" expectation of non-recovery...



It basically says that deadly force is allowable when;



__The person reasonably believes force is necessary to prevent another from taking the property or to recover it once taken (if in fresh pursuit); and



__when the person reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to prevent someone from committing arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime, or to prevent a person from fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the nighttime; and



__the person reasonably believes that the property can't be recovered by any other means, and that using less than deadly force might expose the person to substantial risk of bodily harm or death.





Very few people know or acknowledge this law but it's there nonetheless, most often if a fear of life plea is plausible it's used first since those cases are more palatable to DA's, grand juries and regular juries should it come to trial.