Three weeks ago, in the aftermath of that Jensen Beach jewelry store robbery where the store owner put a bullet in the brain of the fleeing 17-year-old suspect, I asked: So we're allowed to shoot at fleeing thieves, now?

The answer appears to be a solid "yes."

Last week the State Attorney's Office announced there would be no charges filed against Michael Dacey, the former New York detective who owns the Treasure Coast Liquidators store in Granada Plaza off U.S. 1.

On Dec. 13 Jakeem McMillian, of Pompano Beach, allegedly came into the store, tried on some jewelry, threatened to kill Dacey's wife and bolted. Surveillance video shows McMillian pushing a jewelry store employee to the ground as he jumps into a (stolen) car driven by alleged accomplice John Sidney Clark IV.

More: State Attorney's Office won't file charges against jewelry store owner

More: Teen accused in jewelry store robbery dies

The car takes off as Dacey runs behind it and fires his Glock 19 pistol once, hitting McMillian.

McMillian has since died, and his family has filed a civil lawsuit against the jewelry store owner in the state courts. We'll see how that turns out.

But while alleged accomplice Clark faces criminal charges in the case, the shooting itself has been deemed justified by local law enforcement because, in the words of Assistant State Attorney David Lustgarten, "Mr. Dacey was authorized under the law to do what he did ... and from my perspective, it wasn't even a close call."

McMillian was fleeing at the time he was shot; for all intents and purposes, the robbery was over with. But Lustgarten pointed out that under Florida law, the attempted getaway is considered part of the robbery; so the robbery was still in progress as Clark and McMillian tried to speed away.

Florida statutes also state the use of deadly force is permissible to "prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony" — like robbery — "or to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm." I asked Lustgarten: Isn't it a stretch to say the jewelry store owner believed himself in imminent danger as the alleged thieves' car was speeding away from him?

But Lustgarten said since the robbery was still technically in progress, and the earlier threat to the store owner's wife did indeed create a sense of imminent danger, it was OK to shoot.

This, said Lustgarten, was the only possible legal conclusion.

Charles H. Rose, a professor at the Stetson University College of Law, differs.

"They are not wrong on the law, but it could just as easily be interpreted the other way," he told me via email. "The best solution would be to send it to the grand jury and let them decide whether or not the use of force was justified. That will probably not happen for political reasons."

I asked Lustgarten: Does this mean, legally, the jewelry store owner fired in self-defense? Technically, he said, the answer is yes.

I defy anyone to view the surveillance video of the car driving away, and the jewelry store owner chasing after it and shooting, and tell me that's "self-defense."

Lustgarten also disputed my contention in a previous column that if law enforcement fails to condemn this shooting, they condone it. "I'm not condoning or condemning anything here," he said, but merely interpreting and applying the law.

But seems to me we're also setting a precedent.

We're saying that if you're robbed, and you believe at any point during the course of the robbery that you or your employees might be in danger, you can blast away even as the thief flees.

Twenty-five yards down the road, 50? Boom boom.

And it's all self-defense.

Isn't that awesome?

What if the shot had missed? What if that bullet had gone not into McMillian's head, but out toward U.S. 1, crowded with traffic? Would the shooting have still been justified then?

Yes, Lustgarten said.

Welcome to the Wild West.

In covering the Jensen Beach incident, jewelry industry publication JCKonline.com interviewed John Kennedy, president of the Jewelers Security Alliance. While he declined to comment on the incident itself, he did say that "in a number of these cases, the jeweler has faced both criminal charges and a costly lawsuit for civil damages.”

And: "there have been many cases where jewelers intended to shoot a criminal and ended up killing or hurting an innocent bystander."

Oopsie.

Hey, it was just self-defense!

And that is the danger of what happened in Jensen Beach.

This isn't about sympathy for an accused felon, though Jakeem McMillian was just 17 and his mother spent her holidays composing her son's obituary and hoping for donations on GoFundMe to pay for his funeral.

This is about public order; and while public order is threatened by felons, it's also threatened when, in response, we go over the top — and the law, or the interpretation of the law, explains it all away.

Martin County loves the idea of frontier justice, as TCPalm readers have made plain. On the frontier, lots of "bad guys" got what was coming to them. But lots of innocent folks who just happened to be in the line of fire caught stray bullets, too.

Call that justice if you like.

I'll call it something else.

Gil Smart is a TCPalm columnist and a member of the Editorial Board. His columns reflect his opinion. Readers may reach him at gil.smart@tcpalm.com, by phone at 772-223-4741 or via Twitter at @TCPalmGilSmart.