• U.S.

Law: Trouble with Fighting Back

3 minute read
Richard Lacayo

Because Prentice Rasheed knew so little about wiring, he avoided a charge last week. Rasheed is the Miami shopkeeper who became the focus of nationwide publicity last month after a booby trap in his store killed a would-be robber. He claimed that he thought his trap — a pair of metal grates attached to an outlet by an extension cord — would merely jolt intruders, not execute them. “I don’t know the first thing about electrical wiring,” Rasheed insists.

A Dade County grand jury believed him and declined to indict Rasheed for manslaughter because he had acted without the intent to kill. Even so, it added, negligent or intentional killing solely to protect property, “should never be tolerated.” The grand jurors’ decision was a locally popular one, but the mixed signals they sent had some people worried. “Their actions will probably speak louder than their words,” says Criminal Justice Professor William Wilbanks, of Florida International University. “Most people are going to think the grand jury said that Rasheed did the right thing.”

Sympathy for crime victims who fight back — even when they have clearly violated the law — is common. Two weeks ago, a jury considering charges under the much publicized handgun ban in Oak Park, Ill., acquitted a frequently robbed gas-station owner who used a pistol to shoot at armed thieves as they fled. Earlier this year a New York City judge dismissed weapon-possession charges against a subway token clerk who had killed a mugger with an unlicensed gun.

The general doctrine that one cannot take life to protect property is rooted in English common law. The law — a leading precedent came from Florida’s Supreme Court in 1981 — is particularly wary of deadly traps, which act without discrimination. Rasheed’s victim “could very easily have been a fireman, a policeman or someone who just wandered into the store,” says James Mullin, chairman of the local American Civil Liberties Union chapter.

Courts often make a distinction, however, when the property in question is a home and when the residents are present. In recent years, Louisiana and Colorado have adopted laws broadening the right of homeowners to use deadly force against intruders. That approach too can have unforeseen consequences. The Colorado statute, dubbed the “make my day” law, has produced some cases that greatly stretch the home-under-siege scenario. In one instance, a suspected drug dealer shot an acquaintance who was after his stash, according to authorities, and in two others, jealous lovers killed rivals. “What it boils down to is that any crime committed in a dwelling will be almost impossible to prosecute,” complains Jack Byron, an assistant district attorney in Golden.

In the wake of the Miami grand jury’s decision, Florida Legislator James Burke intends to sponsor a law to allow businesses to use potentially deadly devices to protect property, if they report them to police and fire departments and put up a warning sign. Meanwhile, Rasheed and his attorney Ellis Rubin plan appearances in Chicago, Detroit and other cities to start a campaign to change other states’ laws. “Sometimes your property can be the same as your life, when it’s the source of your livelihood,” says Rubin. As for Rasheed, he says he is done with deadly traps and hopes that the police “are out there now watching my business.”

More Must-Reads from TIME

Contact us at letters@time.com