Man who shot 3 attackers, fired 14 rounds into their jeep...not guilty under "castle doctrine" law

[madfloridian]

Florida's "castle doctrine" "stand your ground" bill, which means you can shoot if you feel threatened...is proving to be confusing. In fact here is what the judge said in this case:

Judge Sheila Isaac, who presided over the case, said the law apparently "went right through the Legislature without a single attorney looking at it."

Laws Can Create Legal Confusion



RICHARD GRAULICH/THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Norman Borden, center, and Public Defender Carey Haughwout, left, react to the jury's decision of not guilty in June in West Palm Beach. Borden, 44, was found not guilty of charges related to his shooting of three would-be assailants, two of whom died.

Borden, 44, was walking his dogs last year when three men in a Jeep tried to run him down. He pulled a gun and shot five times through the windshield, then moved to the side of the vehicle and fired nine more rounds.

He thought the shooting was self-defense, but a prosecutor put him on trial in the deaths, despite a new Florida law that grants wide latitude to people using deadly force to protect themselves.

The case highlights the confusion surrounding so-called "stand-your-ground" laws, which have been adopted in at least 14 states. The laws have perplexed judges and prosecutors, and, in some cases, forced lawyers to change the way they review evidence.

This law was propelled into place by Dennis Baxley, Jeb's closest buddy in the Florida legislature. Baxley also pushed for get the a bill passed with the support of David Horowitz to sue professors who sounded too liberal.

Here is an article about it at FindLaw:

Why It's More Extreme than Other States' Self-Defense Measures, And How It Got that Way

Florida's new "Stand Your Ground" law changes Florida's self-defense rules in several ways. First, it is now very easy to invoke the "castle" doctrine in Florida.

Under the old law, a person who killed someone in their home had the burden of proof to show that they were in fear for their safety. Now, all a person has to do is establish that the person they killed was "unlawfully" and "forcibly" entering their home when they shot the victim.

..."Second, the new Florida law expands the definition of "castle" to include vehicles -- such as cars and boats. This expansion the castle doctrine was clearly intended to address carjacking."

..."Because the new law bulks up the old "castle" doctrine -- once a reasonable rule of law -- until it is a legal monstrosity: a legal Incredible Hulk.

And the author adds one more statement about the law:

The "Stand Your Ground" Law Says Property Is More Important than Life. In this respect, Florida has taken a wrong turn that no other state should emulate.

I guess I hope that no one ever assumes I am a danger to them out in public somewhere. The three men in the jeep never had a chance to tell their side of the story.

I guess that makes me a bleeding heart type, but I do have some reservations about where all this is going.

ON EDIT: Please note I made no judgement on the verdict. I am concerned about the extent of the law itself. There is such a revenge mindset in our country now since the Bush doctrine of anything goes if you are not on my side.....that is my concern.

I do think 14 rounds was probably extreme. But I do not question the jury...please note that.

[Tektonik]

1. Well cross Florida off my list of possible places to visit in the future

:puke:

[1monster]

40. And will you also cross off Arizona, Georgia, Indiana, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana,

Michigan, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee and Texas, too?

All of those states have "stand your ground" laws. In Kentucky, the law was so confusing that a judge presiding over one of the cases said that the law must have gone through the legislature without a single lawyer looking at it.

This kind of madness is spreading. It is not just a Florida problem.

Who benefits from this kind of law?

(edit: added state names that didn't show up the first time)

[Edweird]

44. madness? being able to defend yourself is madness?

Who benefits from this kind of law?

People who choose not to be victimized by violent criminals, that's who.

Take this for example:
(about 10 mins from my house)
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-flbsubway30sbjun30,0,6901278.story

Do you see a problem with that mans actions?
What would you have done instead?

[1monster]

51. Florida already had adequate laws on the books to protect anyone who acted in self-defense.

This "stand your ground" law wasn't needed.

And I do think that continuing to fire into the jeep after it had stopped was excessive.

Had a person from the jeep tried to "rough up" (quoted from the guy who survived the shooting) after the first five bullets were fired and the vehicle stopped, he still had his gun to protect himself.

And under Florida's version of the law, one doesn't even have to be in peril. He only needs to think he is in peril. So it is shoot first, ask questions later.

It is likely that the man in this story would have had the same result had it happened before the "stand your ground" law was enacted.

[Edweird]

58. Excessive? Really? Do you understand what the circumstances were?

This wasn't road rage. He was being attacked by members of a very dangerous gang. That is serious business.
I live in Florida. This nastiness is happening around where I live. I, personally, am glad they enacted that law.

[1monster]

68. Where in the article does it state that the shooter knew that these men were

members or a dangerous gang?

As to understanding the "circumstances", you really shouldn't be so patronizing when making your point. It tends to have the opposite effect.

I understand the "circumstances" quite well, thank you. As a woman, I've had to deal with enough "circumstances" in my life from to understand danger.

It lurks every where, including the local discount store where a woman was run over by a truck in the surveillance-laden parking lot because she wouldn't give her purse up and two people in the truck tried to grab it...

[Edweird]

70. Here.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/palmbeach/sfl-0625bordentrial,0,3245020.story

Christopher Araujo, 19, and Saul Trejo, 21, a documented Sur 13 gang member, were killed.

Minutes earlier, Borden had an ugly confrontation with Araujo and Mendez, who had been drinking all night and threatened to harm his dogs.

Borden knew at least one of the men in the car to have a reputation for violence and carrying a gun.


It's all there

[slampoet]

59. This case isn't Defense. It's emptying your clip and not having a second one at hand.

Assuming that this gun had 13 in the clip and one loaded ready to fire in the chamber of course.

If he would have reloaded what would you say since not a single threat existed once the driver was shot dead?

Fact is this is adrenaline doing the trigger work and anyone who has really been under fire would tell you.

If this was WWII this guy would have been disciplined for wasting ammo.

[Edweird]

65. Tell you what. Do research on Sur13. That's who these guys were.

They burned his house down while he was awaiting trial. They are likely going to kill him eventually anyway. But, he stood up for himself. As would I.

[slampoet]

85. So are you saying the shooter knew their life stories before he shot them?

No.

All the shooter saw was the car and maybe two of the three figures at best.


Stop talking like he had time to do a google search.

PUUUUHLEEZE

[Edweird]

86. Here. You don't have all the facts.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/palmbeach/sfl-0625bordentrial,0,3245020.story

Christopher Araujo, 19, and Saul Trejo, 21, a documented Sur 13 gang member, were killed.

Minutes earlier, Borden had an ugly confrontation with Araujo and Mendez, who had been drinking all night and threatened to harm his dogs.

Borden knew at least one of the men in the car to have a reputation for violence and carrying a gun.


It's all there

[slampoet]

94. Yes, i read that. He shot at that car only sure of two of the occupants.... the third occupant

could have been anyone, even an innocent child.


He shot blind.

any hunter would be in jail.

[Scout]

96. the first story I read...

said he had an "encounter" with those in the jeep, and RETURNED HOME to get his gun, and then CAME BACK.

If that is this same incident, then this shooting was NOT in self-defense...

[Edweird]

107. The punks left to pick up the third person, just to make sure they outweighed him and then returned.

How is it not self defense?

[Scout]

114. He left the encounter and went home, alive, well and unharmed. n/t

[Edweird]

115. Until these animals that you, for whatever reason, are defending returned to assault him.

There were 3 of them. 3! Just to make sure they could overpower him. At what point would it have been justified in your mind? When they are holding him down? When he's being beaten with a baseball bat? When he's almost dead? (You do realize that it's easy to kill someone with a baseball bat, right? It IS a deadly weapon. And these pieces of garbage admitted that they intended to assault him.) Should we just all stop fighting back against violent scumbag criminals? Should we just curl up into little balls and hope for a relatively quick and painless death? Why is a citizen that fought back the bad guy? When did living scum gang members become "altar boys"? I live in South Florida. I used to drive down Hiawatha and Westgate daily. I've had run ins with gang member punks myself. Fortunately for everyone, they chose not to escalate past shouting.
If you feel that gang members are ok, then I will happily rent a U-Haul and drive those predators to YOUR backyard.

[Edweird]

116. I envy your obviously sheltered life.

[slampoet]

142. I grew up in the slums of Detroit. My mother was one of the first Female Detroit cops.

I saw my first dead body before I was 7. I had 4 friends get killed before I was 18.


SCREW YOU HONKEY.

[Edweird]

104. Was there an "innocent child" in the car? Or was the car filled with violent criminals?

[Edweird]

110. You are defending sur13 gang members. If you want them, take them.

I live in South Florida, and would be more than happy to assist them in relocating to your neighborhood.
I personally support legally armed citizens that refuse to be cowed by these predators. They are scum of the earth.
Just like I support any attempt by our congress to reign in the criminals in the whitehouse.
However, I can see the general mindset, for whatever reason, makes excuses for the criminals and scorns those who resist.


on edit: Even THE PROSECUTOR was relieved when he was exonerated.

[slampoet]

130. I can see you have a hardon for shooting people..

so i will just let the asshol# have the last word.

[Xenotime]

134. LOL good one.

[Major Hogwash]

56. Correction - Idaho doesn't have a "stand your ground" law here.

Idaho's new law only deals with blocking civil lawsuits filed in cases of self-defense.

We have a "castle doctrine" defense law that pertains to protecting one in their home, but not out in public.

[1monster]

66. Sorry, just quoting the article.

[Major Hogwash]

76. No problem, the article's source for that disinformation was the NRA.

I'm not surprised.

[LanternWaste]

112. I imagine it's people with either a lot of...

"Who benefits from this kind of law?"
I imagine it's people with either a lot of property or a lot of guns (or both?). :shrug:

The day may come when I actually feel compelled to buy a firearm-- not to protect me from criminals, but to protect me from this new breed of gun-toting, John Wayne-wannabe jackasses who, I fear, will turn out to an additional threat to the common good in the long run.

[Xenotime]

133. There is no benefit to this law..

It just gives trigger happy crazies more reason to shoot people.

[spoony]

78. Why, do you make a habit of trying to run people over?

I don't see how you'd have any problem otherwise.

[Horse with no Name]

2. Because you could truly make a case in today's courts

that a freeper-type felt his lifestyle was threatened by a Democrat so he killed him.
It's not a far stretch and with the courts packed by fascist whackos...I can only imagine how the verdict would go.

[sleipnir]

3. I was nearly intentionally run down on a street once and I sure as hell felt my life was threatened.

I managed to run further from the road, making it harder for the truck to pursue.

But, if I had a gun, I certainly would have used it, almost in the same fashion as the defendant.

It's attempted murder and after it's happened to you, I can completely understand his actions.

I was so freaked out afterwords, I wasn't quite able to think straight for a few minutes, which also might account for the defendant firing more shots after the jeep was first hit.

[madfloridian]

4. Ok. I knew some would disagree.

I just hope you never think I am threatening you.

[sleipnir]

9. Simple. Don't actively threaten to kill me and I'm fine. I would expect the same from anyone.

I really don't understand the confusion.

If you are threatened with murder, why would you not react in a reasonable, self-defensive way?

Would you rather die?


All I'm saying is that being run-down is a terrifying and very quick experience, one that can easily prompt a fast (and perhaps rash) action. I can personally understand how the defendant committed his actions. Does that make them moral? Legal? That's not my decision, but the courts in Florida seem to favor self-defense.

[madfloridian]

23. It makes everything black and right....right or wrong. No room for thought.

Just a mindset of kill. That is what bothers me.

[Yukari Yakumo]

29. In situations like that, there isn't any room for thought

Live or die, a split second decision determines what route you go on. You don't know if the attacker wants to kill you. And when you do, it's probably too late.

[madfloridian]

47. So you kill them first.

.

[spoony]

79. He should have tried shouting over the engine noise to ask why

they were trying to kill him. Clearly that was the only proper course of action.

[sleipnir]

32. Yes, there is that danger, but I can only go on personal experience.

That when I saw the people driving the truck chasing me, they were clearly not "in trouble." They were even laughing as they drove by me after they realized they couldn't chase me by the trees.

Perhaps the defendant wasn't luck enough to have a place to run to, and his only option after considering the circumstances was to fire a weapon.

Again, my unscientific but personal opinion is the 14 shots were more likely a reaction of fright and fear than anything else. Firing excessive rounds in fear/defense often occurs even with highly trained police officers and soldiers.


My general life experience has taught me that my mind is usually right 9 times out 10 when people intend to do harm and I have enough time to assess the situation before acting.


The danger with the law is that it does increase a chance for an armed civilian to make a wrong choice, that is true. But, to prosecute someone for self-defense, even overly-aggressive self-defense in an attempted murder is also wrong. It seems a balance must be found.

[Xenotime]

135. It's the same mindset this administration has.

[speakclearly]

103. We should also note

That one of the attempted murderers survived and was able to "tell his side of the story". I am truly surprised that so many commenters think that the victim here (the shooter) was wrong in the actions he took (the jury clearly didn't think so). If someone tries to run you down or kill you, you shouldn't have to PROVE you tried to get away before you can legally protect yourself.

What is even more important, is that despite predictions to the contrary of a"bloodbath" in Florida, there have been very few cases where criminals have been shot while committing crimes against individual citizens. And its not because there is a lack of guns on the street (law-abiding citizens can obtain "concealed cary permits" simply by applying and having a clean record). No one getting gunned down in bars or on the sidewalks over disputes about parking spots or anything (as so many newspapers suggested would happen).

Violent crime is on the decline in Florida. Now that may be because we stopped using lead paint 25 years ago (as one "professor" suggests), or it could be that "an armed society is a polite society". Someone breaking into your home (where your family can be vulnerable to a predatory criminal) or jacking your car (by force) or even "trying to run you down" is a threat to your (or family's) life and you should be able to use force to counter the threat.

Compare that to DC or New York. You can't own a gun. If a criminal breaks in and rapes your daughter and your wife and kills you, society breathes easier when the police apprehend the perpetrator. That provides little solace to you or your wife and daughter.

At WORST, the new law in Florida will serve to prosecute those who abuse it by resorting to gunfire under color of specious justification. And, let's face it, that is what happens during any criminal shooting today. If a criminal shoots you down, he is put on trial. That is all that will happen now in Florida, and what did happen in this situation. The "shooter" was found innocent by a jury of his peers in a unanimous decision. If things get out of hand (and there is, as yet, no indication of that), the legislature can revisit the law. So far, the dire warnings of the negative consequences of a "concealed carry" law have not materialized, and this may be the result for the "castle law".

[seriousstan]

5. Good for him. They tried to run him down. That means they got to pick a weapon

the time and the place for an attempted murder. I believe at that point I get to use whatever weapon I can lay my hand on and it is my turn to call it quits. In Ohio, if I am attacked by someone with a board and I manage to take it away from the attacker, I cannot then chase the person with THE SAME BOARD and beat the shit out of them. I didn't start the fight. I didn't pick the weapon AND they got the first shot! I should then be able to decide when to end the fight.

For the "challenged"...I am not talking about stalking a person for days, BUT if you run down the street and I know an alley shortcut, I will suck smack you in the head with your own club.

[madfloridian]

7. I guess you mean I am "challenged"....so please don't consider me your enemy.

There just seems something so obscene about 14 bullets into a car when the driver has already been shot.

I would love to see the court transcript that the jeep was not doing something accidental, and that for sure it was trying to kill him.

So much bothers me.

[seriousstan]

15. You self-identified, I merely elaborated for those who might not understand. HOWEVER...

you should read all of any article you post. For example.....

One of his would-be attackers, 21-year-old Juan Mendez, admitted in testimony at Borden's trial that the three men in the Jeep planned to "rough him up." A baseball bat was also found in the vehicle.

AND....


Williams said he pursued the charges because he thought a jury needed to decide the case. But he privately wondered how he would have behaved in the same situation. When Borden was acquitted, the prosecutor was almost relieved.

The assailants "were bringing an arsenal," Williams conceded after the trial. "It was pretty clear what the right thing to do was here."


He had every right to kill them all. He either was nice and stopped when he no longer felt they were a threat, or he ran out of bullets.

[madfloridian]

18. Please read the end of my OP above. I am judging the law...

and the sense of revenge it carries with it.

[scrinmaster]

20. Revenge?

They tried to run him over, they had threatened to hurt him and his dogs, one of them was a violent gang member, the survivor told police they had intended to beat him up and they had a baseball bat in the car. Clear cut self defense, to me at least.

[knight_of_the_star]

43. Baseball bat wouldn't matter

In the eyes of the law you can only make the judgment for reasonable level of force based on what you know at the time. If the guy didn't know they had a bat that wouldn't have mattered as he did not know it was there and it could not enter into the decision.

[piedmont]

97. He knew they had a deadly weapon-- the Jeep that they had already used against him.

Additionally, it would have been reasonable to assume that they each had fists and feet, which account for about 6% of all murders in the U.S.

edit to add link: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_07.html

[1monster]

63. I have a baseball bat in my car. It's been there for the last fifteen years...

And I've never assalted anyone or committed battery on anyone or tried to run anyone down.

Yes, one of the men in the jeep admitted that they were going to "rough him up."

But, suppose I were driving down the road at dusk or after dark and I swerved to miss an animal never realizing that there was someone walking his dog in the path of the swerve.

The dog walker manages to get out of the way of the car, and, believing I was trying to run him down opens fire.

Is the baseball bat in the car evidence of intent to commit bodily harm on the dog walker?

Is the dog walker justified in opening fire?

[seriousstan]

21. Then show me an example of the courts upholding an improper use of this law.

Don't take a proper use and twist it into a "what if?". The law protected this mans RIGHT to protect his life. Imaginary examples are just that...imaginary.

[madfloridian]

25. Ok, it protects his right.

I just hope mistakes are never made when judging.

Wow, I am not going to kill you guys or attack you. Just showing both sides.

[karlrschneider]

6. There's nothing wrong with the 'stand your ground' law, but in THIS case it was

poorly adjudicated. If this guy had simply stopped shooting when the imminent threat was neutralized, I would be on his side but he escalated it to an unreasonable level when (if the excerpts in this story are accurate) he continued shooting after the vehicle was presumably inoperative. If someone attacks me, I will attempt to stop him with a shot to the knee, shoulder or other extremity. If he keeps on with the attack, he's a dead man. Part of the problem is that people don't understand what is legally permissible; it should be more clearly explained to the public when laws like this are passed.
(A very similar one just went into effect here in Oklahoma)

But from what little I can glean from this story, it does seem to me that justice did not prevail.

[Ghost in the Machine]

38. Karl, we usually agree on things, but I'll have to respectfully disagree with you now

I know it's easy when we're sitting here at our computers to say "I would have done this, or shot him there" but when faced with the real live scenario, many of us would react differently. The pure raw emotion and pumping adrenaline running through your body and brain is controlling you at that moment.

We can never truly KNOW what our "fight or flight" reaction will be. I can see the guy so jacked up on adrenaline that he just kept squeezing the trigger until the clip was empty, making sur the threat was down.

Maybe it's a reaction from seeing too many bad guys in too many movies get back up after they've been shot, stabbed, hit in the head with an axe, a shovel, thrown out a second story window.. etc, etc.. Don't forget, most of the population lives on sound bites and movie clips...

[spoony]

80. Probably hard to target extremities from outside a vehicle.

[Codeine]

99. Shooting extremities is SO MUCH BULLSHIT.

Even trained professionals don't try that stuff; in a split-second situation, with adrenaline coursing through your system, in poor lighting, with a moving target, and with little time to aim you're usually very lucky to be able to hit center body mass. Shooting out knees and shoulders is Hollywood, and usually old Hollywood, as most modern filmmakers aren't even that stupid.

It's a nice idea, but it ignores a painful little thing called "reality."

[Edweird]

8. There's more to this story. The people he shot were MS13 gang members.

These guys:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mara_Salvatrucha
http://www.altereddimensions.net/crime/MS13Gang.htm
http://www.knowgangs.com/gang_resources/profiles/ms13/

If they were attacking me, I would have shot them myself. I have had a close call with some of these punks. It didn't escalate to the point of gunfire, but only barely. I was just a utility worker performing my duties in the Boynton Beach,FL area, and I guess they thought it would be fun. Whatever. I have no sympathy for them. They are fairly prevalent in the area I live ( just out side Miami).

[madfloridian]

11. Ok...then I guess he had to fire 14 rounds.

Note in my OP I did not say right or wrong verdict....I did say I was concerned where this was taking us in this country.

[Edweird]

13. The man was being attacked by members of a dangerous gang.

This was not "road rage" or a fight over a parking space.

Here:
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/palmbeach/sfl-0625bordentrial,0,3245020.story

"Minutes earlier, Borden had an ugly confrontation with Araujo and Mendez, who had been drinking all night and threatened to harm his dogs.

Prosecutor Craig Williams doesn't dispute that the first five shots Borden fired were in self-defense, but told jurors that Borden had an obligation to reassess the situation before he walked around to the driver's side of the door and continued to shoot.

But Haughwout countered that Borden knew at least one of the men in the car to have a reputation for violence and carrying a gun.

"Should he have turned his back and run so he could be shot in the back while he's running?" Haughwout asked."

[madfloridian]

14. Ok.

.

[Louie the XIV]

39. The government should be spending more time deporting/arresting these gangbangers

instead of wasting resources prosecuting an honest citizen for defending his own life. And some people on here wonder why so many good law abiding Americans feel the need to carry firearms, this is a perfect example.

[Edweird]

17. Trust me. If you ever have the misfortune of dealing with these guys,

you'll understand. They are BAAAD NEWS>

[-..__...]

22. Actually, they were members of SUR 13...

still bad Ju-Ju...

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-flpborden0626pnjun26,0,6046942.story

Sounds like he did the community a favor by doing what he did.

Thing that sucks, is that Borden will most likely have to go into hiding for a very long time in order to escape from retaliation.

[Edweird]

26. They burned his house down while he was in jail. He's going to end up dead eventually.

[Major Hogwash]

30. Did he know that when he killed them? Why did they try to run him down?

Does he have a previous history with that gang?

He shot these men in public, right?
How can the "castle doctrine" be invoked when the castle doctrine refers to the right of a man to protect himself in his castle - and yet this guy was just out for a walk?
What was in the background where these men were shot? Buildings? A park? A hospital?

Did the men in the Jeep have weapons?
Did they display those weapons?
Did they have guns?
Did they point their guns at him?
Did they shoot their guns at him?

He shot 5 times into the windshield, was he trying to kill just the driver or everyone in the Jeep?
Were the passengers responsible for the driver's actions?
Did they cheer the driver on to make another pass in a 2nd attempt to run over him?
Were they executed as a result?

Was he willing to take prisoners in order to turn them over to the police, or did he just want to kill someone?

[seriousstan]

31. Did you read any of the other posts or even the original post?

[-..__...]

36. Too many questions.

here's the answer to one of them...

Borden had reason to believe the men in the car were violent, Haughwout said. Aarujo once told Borden he carried two guns and had held a weapon to a woman's head, according to trial testimony. Trejo was a reputed local leader of Sur 13, a violent street gang.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2007/06/25/0625borden.html

[Edweird]

37. It's not "castle doctrine" it's "stand your ground"

somewhere it got mixed up.

[Edweird]

45. Here.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/palmbeach/sfl-0625bordentrial,0,3245020.story

That oughta clear it up.

[appal_jack]

91. a jeep can be a deadly weapon...

It's not necessary for a gun to be brandished in order for a deadly threat to be made.

I've had engines 'gunned' and heard shrieking tires coming toward me, and it's a terrifying threat to face. Fortunately, I ran out of the way, and in my case, it was just some drunk fools enjoying seeing the scrawny kid (I was about 13 at the time) jump and scamper, and after that, they left me alone.

The driver, and yes, even the passengers of the jeep in this case in FL, acted with felonious intent. The driver was assaulting with a deadly weapon and attempting murder. The passengers were accessories to attempted murder. I do not feel particularly sorry for any of them.

-app

[Codeine]

101. RTFA.

It's all in there, genius.

[Xenotime]

136. Exactly. The passengers were not driving.

[scrinmaster]

10. It was a good ruling.

I don't feel any sympathy for people who get drunk and try to run some one over, then get shot by the person they tried to kill.

It sucks that he had to spend eight months in prison though.

[Louie the XIV]

12. Exactly

Too bad the "victims" families probably don't have any money otherwise he should be compensated for his legal expenses and imprisonment.

[madfloridian]

16. Ok.

.

[madfloridian]

19. Does this apply to someone on the street approaching you?

How far does it go? It appears there is a split second to decide to run or yell or just shoot.

[seriousstan]

24. Failed with an actual instance so now we must consider the imaginary ones? OK.

2 people approach each other on the street. One is a paranoid loon who see's imaginary scenarios. This loon shoots the innocent pedestrian. I believe the court imprisons the loon for lack of evidence of a threat. One more loon off the street.

Any more make believe examples?

[madfloridian]

27. I sure hope it works that way.

[seriousstan]

28. Show me where it hasn't so far, then I'll worry about it. Until then, it's working.

This man is alive. He doesn't have to "hope" they wouldn't kill him.

[madfloridian]

35. Show you?

I don't think so. I think you could look up and find it.

My concern is the ramifications of such law. If you feel threatened in your car or boat or on the street, just kill.

It leaves the door open for much abuse.

[Edweird]

41. See #33

[seriousstan]

42. You be "concerned" and "hope" all you want, I don't see where this law is being abused.

If you think it is , then yes...show me. Otherwise, your's are baseless worries of a worried person.

[madfloridian]

48. I am a concerned person who cares about my country's mindset

of anger and revenge, and I fear we will start seeing danger in everyone we meet.

[seriousstan]

52. Your fear is of your own making and obviously no amount of explaining will alleviate it.

But the, as you explained down thread, you get it and moat of us don't. It must feel so superior to be so enlightened in the midst of us confuse folks.

Stay safe, stay inside and "hope" nobody attacks your castle. Because I highly doubt you can make the kind of spit second decisions that would save your life in that situation.

[madfloridian]

60. Are you not aware this is expanded to public areas?

Thanks for not understanding there IS a broader picture here.

You are getting a little ugly toward me for my opinion.

[Xenotime]

137. Very true.

There are many paranoid people out there and if they feel threatened, the have a right to kill? Sounds stupid to me.

[Edweird]

33. It needs to be apparent to a reasonable person that you needed to defend yourself.

Just shooting somebody walking down the street is wrong in every respect and you will rightly go to prison. This law, as I understand it, means that if a mugger or robber or what-have-you attacks me or my family I have the right to act defensively. Before this law was enacted you were basically required to curl up into a ball and hope they didn't kill you. Of course, if they WERE killing you, you could THEN defend yourself, but that doesn't do you much good. This is real life, not some hokey steven seagal movie.

Here:
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-flbsubway30sbjun30,0,6901278.story
This happened about 10 miles from my house. Another perfect example of what was intended (as I understand it) by the law.

[Kagemusha]

34. This is stupidly giving the castle doctrine a bad name.

This case has NOTHING to do with castle doctrine. The case has nothing to do with defending one's property - it relies on the part of the law involved in defending one's life. The other parts of the law may involve expanding "castle doctrine," but that has nothing to do with this specific case, at all.

[madfloridian]

46. I have a fear that in George Bush's America, emotions are raw..

and revenge is part of our nature here now.

I think it is good to have these discussions. It shows that only a few of us here see a whole big picture emerging, while most do not.

It doesn't make us better people, it makes us see a bigger scenario.

It means if I appeared threatening to someone on the street they could kill me and get away with it, and I would not be around to defend myself.

Revenge is part of America's nature now.

There is a new America, and it is not the one that the older of us here knew. So I guess I hope I don't live too long to see the mindset of tough and unyielding taken to the extreme.

[Louie the XIV]

50. Actually the castle doctrine and other self defense laws

have been around since the Wild West. Do you have evidence that more people are shooting in self-defense these days or are you just overreacting to this one story?

[madfloridian]

57. This is the expanded castle doctrine to public areas.....not just homes.

Am I over reacting? I am sure you think so.

[benEzra]

89. No, it doesn't.

This is the expanded castle doctrine to public areas.....not just homes.

The Castle Doctrine (presumption of justifiability) provisions in the new law apply ONLY to defending against (1) an unlawful forced entry of your home or residence, or (2) a carjacking. It does not extend the Castle Doctrine to public areas in general; the grounds for self-defense in public places are now the same as in California and most other states, i.e. imminent danger of death, serious bodily harm, or forcible felony.

Prior to the new law, Florida had an additional (and quirky) "duty to retreat" statute, under which even if you are being actually attacked by someone trying to murder you, a prosecutor could argue that you should have tried to outrun them before using force to stop them, and charge you with murder for shooting someone actually trying to kill you. The deletion of that provision brought Florida's self-defense law for public places into line with California's and that of most other states, which do not have separate retreat statutes.

[jpgray]

49. It's a bad law because all gun owners are not trained to evaluate these situations

Police and soldiers receive extensive training in this regard, and they -still- fuck up a significant amount. Misjudging a situation and pulling a gun with visions of the Wild West and Dirty Harry dancing in your head can get a lot of innocent people hurt. Giving more legal justification to random fear and fight-or-flight impulses isn't necessarily a good thing.

[Edweird]

54. You're saying that average people are so stupid that they can't tell if someone is trying to kill

them?

[jpgray]

61. Yes. Cops are trained more than the average person, and they filled Diallo et al with holes

An individual being judge, jury and executioner based on a "feeling" is scarcely supportable in the military or in the police force--I don't support it for the average person. The average person was swept up by the Macarena. The average person believes Iraq was involved in 9/11. You'd put life or death decisions in their hands based on an ephemeral feeling of being "threatened?"

[Edweird]

67. This guy was put on trial and exonerated. There WAS a trial.

You can't just shoot people for the heck of it. If that starts happening, then I'll happily discuss what a terrible law it is. But for now we have legally armed citizens justifiably defending themselves. It's a good thing.

[jpgray]

69. I'm not saying this guy deserved to be roadkill or anything--just that the law is dangerous

Trained professionals misperceive threats and cause tragic death all the time. I'd prefer the law support the average citizen who responds to an -actual- threat, not just a perceived threat. The ability to correctly size up potential threats is just not something that goes automatically with the ability to purchase a gun, therefore individuals should be held to a slightly higher standard than police or soldiers. The latter two have had the necessary training. A shooter may more easily prove he perceived a threat, whereas it's just a bit more oversight to require a jury share that perception for the use of lethal force to be legal.

[Edweird]

71. This wasn't road rage. These guys threatened him earlier, then charged him.

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to figure out what's going to happen to you when gang members take a run at you.
Like I said. Show me where it's gone wrong. I can admit when I'm wrong. This isn't it.

[jpgray]

72. Again, I'm not arguing this instance was unjustified--it's the law itself I take issue with

To be lazy and post from Wikipedia:

The Florida statute allows the use of deadly force when a person reasonably believes it necessary to prevent the commission of a "forcible felony." Under the statute, forcible felonies include "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."

If all you have to prove is that you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony, I could legally shoot a teenager who stole a lady's purse and refused to stop when faced with non-deadly force. No jury in the world would let me off, true, but the language of the law allows it. Other self-defense laws aren't so lenient. And is somebody's life worth the spoils of even a class 4 felony robbery?

[Edweird]

74. I live in Florida. I have lived here for about 16 years. The crime here has

just exploded. Violent crime.

I lived in this neighborhood (unfortunately) for several years.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/palmbeach/sfl-flprape0706pnjul06,0,2206664.story

This is a few short miles from where I live now.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-flbsubway30sbjun30,0,6901278.story

We have serial rapists. Home invasion robberies turning into murders.
People being abducted right off the street and being raped and murdered:
http://www.local10.com/news/13460377/detail.html?subid=22100404&qs=1;bp=t

Every now and then a family turns up murdered on the turnpike:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/10/14/national/main2089800.shtml

It's out of control down here. We (the good guys) need every advantage we can get. I'm happy with the law. I actually have to live with it, being that I live in Florida.

[jpgray]

75. Thankfully, not living in FL doesn't preclude me from having an opinion

There's no question that faced with the most violent crimes use of deadly force is often justified. However, the self-defense laws of other states allow that latitude -with- increased judicial oversight. In the case of the marine, he had training for the situation and was faced with threats from a deadly weapon. The serial rapist kidnapped the victims at gunpoint. Home invasion is already covered by most extant "castle" laws. The turnpike murder example again would be self-defense vs. the threat of a deadly weapon.

I guess I don't see why the added clauses in the FL such as the very "commission of a forcible felony," which necessarily includes some rather non-threatening felonies, are necessary to protect the victims in your examples from defending themselves. Aren't they protected by most self-defense laws already?

[Edweird]

77. Before this law was enacted, you were required to retreat. And only after you weren't able

to retreat anymore were you able to defend yourself. Well, whether or not you had retreated "enough" could determine whether or not you went to prison. Any prosecutor can make the case that "you could have done more". That puts you in the position of proving a negative (that you couldn't possibly have run away any more than you did) which is next to impossible. That puts the victim in a precarious situation. Not to mention the inevitable wrongful death lawsuit brought by the families of the "altar boys" that you shot. They will swear that they "just left bible study and were on their way to feed the homeless". Now everything you own as well as any future earnings are at risk. This law eliminated that nonsense. It put the risk on the violent criminals - where it belongs.
disclaimer - I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.

[joe_sixpack]

132. What's going on down there?

Some friends and I were talking recently and several of us had individually made the observation that a lot of crazy, nasty crimes seem to be happening in Florida in the last couple of years. Of course we know that there's crime and violence all over the place, but in Florida it seems particularly severe. Anyone know what might be contributing to this? Or is it a coincidence?

[piedmont]

100. Then you fundamentally deny that individuals should have the right to defend themselves.

No ifs, ands, or buts. That's elitist, authoritarian bullshit.

[Xenotime]

139. True.

What might not actually be a threat be viewed as one give a person the right to commit murder? The best exposure the average person has to anything threatening would be in the movies. Too many people get guns and think they are John McClane.

[madfloridian]

55. Actually my hubby called it the Dirty Harry syndrome......

There was another killing in our area in a home this month at a party.

"Johnson, who lives at 534 Timberlane W., Apt. D., just a few homes away from where the burglary happened, went deeper into the apartment to a bedroom. When he opened the door, the apartment's resident, James W. Miranda, shot him once in the chest with a shotgun, the Sheriff's Office said.

The weapon contained birdshot, ammunition used in hunting that can contain from a few dozen to hundreds of tiny pellets."

I guess that is what he needed to do. I heard that there was no hesitation after the door opened before the shot was fired. There was room for error there.

http://www.theledger.com/article/20070624/NEWS/706240478/-1/xml

This was in the home, and does not bother me as much except for the quick shot when the door opened when there were a bunch of people there.

[seriousstan]

64. It would have been better to hesitate and get shot? Obviously the man made the right decision.

The only thing you are saying is that YOU are incapable of making split-second decisions.

[Xenotime]

138. Very well said.

[Edweird]

53. Here is a shooting that is definitely NOT ok.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-710bibleshooting,0,7721083.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines

[benEzra]

82. ...which is as illegal in Florida as it is anywhere else. (n/t)

[madfloridian]

62. Wow, good night and good shooting....

just don't mistake all encounters in public for enemies.

[Roy]

73. It's not about the crime it's about whose accused of the crime....

There is an attempt to pass a version of this law in MO. also.

This from Jena, LA. Different situation but a stark contrast.

http://www.blackcommentator.com/236/236_justice_watch_injustice_in_jena.html

[benEzra]

81. No, the new law did NOT determine the outcome of this case...

since the presumption of justifiability under the new law only applies to defending against illegal forced entries of your home or vehicle (i.e., someone is kicking in your door or trying to carjack you). Other cases fall under the same self-defense standard as the rest of the country, i.e. the question of whether a reasonable person would see you as having been in imminent danger of death, serious bodily harm, or a forcible felony as a result of an unlawful attack.

In this case, even the prosecutor said at least the first five shots were justified self-defense, because the gang members who tried to run him down WERE, in fact, trying to kill him or subject him to serious bodily harm. The question was whether or not his final shots were justifable self-defense, and as he wasn't defending his home or vehicle, it went before a jury. The jury, not the new law, declared that he was still in reasonable danger of death or serious bodily harm and ruled his actions justifiable.

[NaturalHigh]

83. "Man Shoots Gang Members Who Were Trying to Run Him Over"...

Case closed, and fine shooting, Mr. Borden.

[Xithras]

109. Disagree. Defending yourself is one thing, but he tried to execute them.

I'm as pro-gun rights as anyone (I have an arsenal that would make many here cringe) but I think this case stinks. The Jeep tried to run him down, so he fired five shots through the windshield. That brought the Jeep to a stop, and I have no issue with that shooting. But AFTER THE JEEP STOPPED, he walked around the side of the Jeep and fired numerous additional rounds into the passenger compartment. Sorry, that's murder, or at least attempted murder. I DO agree that you have the right to protect yourself with force if you are in immediate danger, but the immediate danger had passed. He'd already shot the driver, and the Jeep wasn't moving. He should have retreated at that point and called the police. Instead, he remained on the scene, confronted the people in the Jeep, and attempted to kill those inside. That is not defendable. The fact that the law MAKES it defendable simply shows the deficiency of the law.

If you break into my house and charge me with an axe, California law can and does allow me to put a bullet into your chest. That's self defense. After you fall down, the law DOES NOT permit me to stand over your helpless body and fire an additional five rounds into your head. That's murder. Florida seems to have confused the two concepts.

[slackmaster]

111. The defendant had additional information that made his fear reasonable IMO

He knew that more than just the driver intended to do him harm.

[Edweird]

119. Yeah. You should just wound them, just like the movies. That always works.

:eyes:

But don't worry. They burned down his house. His dogs were euthanized. He's lost everything of value in his life. And to top it off, I'm sure they'll do their very best to hunt him down and kill him for daring to defend himself.

[MadHound]

84. Missouri has just signed one of these monstrositys into law

And I expect that the attendant legal confusion will follow. Sorry folks, but putting the phrase "felt threatened" to the interpretation of the public at large is simply asking for trouble. Plus, I find the whole concept of a homeowner being given the power of police, judge and jury, all in a heated moment, over what many times is a simple property crime to be a recipie for disaster.

[DiverDave]

87. I said "BAD LAW" when it came out and got crap on here for it

nothing has changed...it's a BAD LAW, I knew that this would happen.

People can just shoot you for nothing....stupid...

[Edweird]

90. Dude, you need to get the facts.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/palmbeach/sfl-0625bordentrial,0,3245020.story

Christopher Araujo, 19, and Saul Trejo, 21, a documented Sur 13 gang member, were killed.

Minutes earlier, Borden had an ugly confrontation with Araujo and Mendez, who had been drinking all night and threatened to harm his dogs.

Borden knew at least one of the men in the car to have a reputation for violence and carrying a gun.

Unless, of course, you are ok with gangbangers, in which case I fully support and will personally fund a gangbanger relocation program to YOUR neighborhood.

[piedmont]

98. And you must be a bad reader. He defended himself from gang members using a deadly weapon.

"People can just shoot you for nothing....stupid..."

Yeah-- stupid. :eyes:

[Codeine]

102. Wow. Read the linked story, Einstein.

You're wrong in so many ways it's almost comical.

[benEzra]

88. Note that the PROSECUTOR says acquittal was the right decision...

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/07/09/america/NA-GEN-US-Deadly-Force.php

Williams said he pursued the charges because he thought a jury needed to decide the case. But he privately wondered how he would have behaved in the same situation. When Borden was acquitted, the prosecutor was almost relieved.

The assailants "were bringing an arsenal," Williams conceded after the trial. "It was pretty clear what the right thing to do was here."

So even the prosecutor himself says that the jury did the right thing in ruling the shooting justifiable self-defense, and only pressed the case because he wanted a jury to make that determination.

He also says that the new law didn't make a difference in this case:

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2007/06/26/m1a_BORDEN_0626.html

Neither Haughwout nor prosecutor Craig Williams thought the verdicts had implications for future defendants claiming self-defense under the Castle Doctrine law, which has been in effect less than two years.

"This case kind of stands on its own," Williams said. "They were bringing a lot of violence to this defendant. I don't think the new law made any difference. The truth hurt me in this case."

[maxsolomon]

92. god i love gun threads

almost as enlightening as pit bull or obesity threads. :eyes:

[slackmaster]

108. Me too

:popcorn:

[Edweird]

93. It is clear to me now why "impeachment is off the table" and why "we don't have the votes".

A man defended himself from armed thugs. Gangbangers. The scum of the earth. And many people are running him down. And this "bad law". They are doing it often without a full understanding of the facts. Some have characterized it as "revenge". The facts as well as the prosecutor say otherwise.

Why?
How is stopping armed thugs from hurting you on the street different from stopping armed thugs in the whitehouse from hurting all of us? Why is self defense wrong? Are we supposed to let them ruin us, destroy us, rob us and kill us? Is that the "progressive" stance?

In other generations the Democratic Party was THE party of National Defense.

Now even self defense is scorned. How sad.



http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/palmbeach/sfl-0625bordentrial,0,3245020.story

Christopher Araujo, 19, and Saul Trejo, 21, a documented Sur 13 gang member, were killed.

Minutes earlier, Borden had an ugly confrontation with Araujo and Mendez, who had been drinking all night and threatened to harm his dogs.

Borden knew at least one of the men in the car to have a reputation for violence and carrying a gun.

[piedmont]

95. He was attacked with deadly force, and he defended himself with deadly force.

Nothing wrong with that other than that the attackers created a life-or-death situation.

[YankmeCrankme]

105. Here's another case

I'm curious. For the supporters of this law, I realize you only have the limited information from the news story, but based on that, do you think this falls under the "stand your ground" law? If not, why not?


http://580wdbo.com/includes/news/indepth/00000_Road-Ragers-Held-on-No-Bond_150713.html

http://www.sptimes.com/2007/02/21/State/Motorists_had_clear_v.shtml




I've even included two contrasting stories about it, which I found interesting.

[piedmont]

113. By the way, is it legal to drive in the emergency lane in FL?

"he and his brother were heading home for the race, and swerved to avoid a car in the thick traffic. But Brandon Haught with the Volusia County Sheriff's Office says that move put him into the path of another car trying to get around traffic in the emergency lane."

They (very stupidly) legalized this here in GA-- is it legal in Florida too?

[YankmeCrankme]

117. As far as I know, it is a traffic violation in Florida.

Yes, seems pretty stupid to legalize that.

[Edweird]

118. I can't quote chapter and verse, but as I recall you are NOT permitted to use your weapon

in any traffic related incident whatsoever. Aggravated assault and loss of permit minimum.

[YankmeCrankme]

121. Even if you feel your life threaten?

Seems your only option is to retreat then. That defeats the whole purpose of a "stand your ground" statute, doesn't it?

[benEzra]

127. No, that's not the case in Florida, or any other state AFAIK.

However, if you invited the attack by belligerent behavior on your part (i.e., you instigated the fight that escalated), you won't pass the "mantle of innocence" test and won't be able to claim self-defense. But that's not specific to traffic altercations.

[slackmaster]

106. Trying to run someone over is bad, mmmmmmmkay?

[Zynx]

120. Try to run a guy over, get what you deserve. No sympathy here.

[phildo]

140. Looks like they brought a Jeep to a gun fight.

Bad tactics.

[DutchLiberal]

122. In Holland, when you even 'just' HIT an 'attacker',

YOU have to go to trial.

[piedmont]

123. Another reason I'm glad I don't live there. nt

[DutchLiberal]

124. Well, I exaggerated of course, but I wanted to make the point

that being one's own judge (= handling the punishment yourself) is NOT appreciated over here. Thankfully.

[benEzra]

128. You're not allowed to punish anyone over here, either.

HOWEVER, if someone is threatening you with death, serious bodily harm, or a forcible felony, you are allowed to use force (up to and including lethal force) to STOP them.

The jury in this case concluded that the shooter was indeed still in danger from the attackers (the necessary precondition for the use of force to be justified), based on the evidence presented at trial, which was the basis for the acquittal.

[phildo]

141. Yeah but they smoke pot there. Our freaks are on Meth.

Whole different animal.

[DutchLiberal]

143. Aaah, the old pot-story

;)

[lonestarnot]

125. Dry running a soon to be police state.

[DemGa]

126. So he stops the attack

then steps around to the side to finish them off? I thought only the police could get away with something like this. :shrug:

[slackmaster]

129. It appears the jury decided his fear that they would promptly retaliate was justified

Having served on a few trial juries myself, I hesitate to second-guess their decisions.

I find the loss of life troubling, but this was an interesting case and I'm glad it's getting so much attention. People need to think very carefully about what their laws say. If judges are having a hard time composing jury instructions, that strongly suggests the law needs some clarification. I am a strong advocate of the right to self-defense, but even I would say this one comes uncomfortably close to blurring the distinction between defense and vigilantism.

Pay attention to your state legislatures, people.

[williesgirl]

131. I agree with the verdict. I've been accosted twice in my car at night alone

in the rural area where I live. In both cases, if I didn't have a gun with me (have concealed weapon permit), I would have been raped or worse. Both times, once I aimed the weapon, the men fled. They actually laughed when my 2 dogs were growling, saying did I actually think they could save me. My answer was no but this will as I raised the gun into aiming position. I was grateful I had it and also that I've never had to fire it other than at the shooting range. I only carry it when I know I'll be out after dark alone and hate doing it, but it's sure saved my bacon.

And, before anyone asks, yes - I would have fired the gun if forced on either occasion. I was terrified but much calmer because I had it.