Sean Taylor Charged with Aggravated Assault

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Got me. If he'd have just shown up at those "voluntary" workouts like I've been bitching about for weeks, we wouldn't have these problems.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

I know this. He definitely hangs out with a terrible crowd in Miami.

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Oh now, let's not be hasty. I'm sure his friend plays baseball for the Hurricanes and that's why he just happened to have a baseball bat nearby......LOL

[TheMalcolmConnection]

The thing I'm most entertained by is that Taylor felt the NEED to get a gun or a bat. Isn't he diesel enough?

[JWsleep]

If I'm not mistaken, Florida has recently altered its laws concerning the use of deadly force. This state has been granting MORE rights to gun owners to use their weapons, even when they can retreat. Here's a quote from a recent post article on the new law:

Florida law already lets residents defend themselves against attackers if they can prove they could not have escaped. The new law would allow them to use deadly force even if they could have fled and says that prosecutors must automatically presume that would-be victims feared for their lives if attacked.

It now seems easier to prove self defense, even though the penalties for gun crimes has gone up. Sean knew these guys were dangerous. He went to ask them about the ATVs, felt threatened, pulled his piece, even though he could have retreated. A scuffle insued. Sean and co. left the scene without shooting. They were later SHOT AT by the folks they confronted, substantiating the fear that led to the pulling of the pistol.

I very much doubt that this is anything like what occurred, but the door is open to self defense, given the new law. Also, the prospect of this defense may make a plea bargain more likely.

Now, Sean's gun was most likely not registered, but we haven't seen a charge of possessing an unlicensed fire arm--Florida is a big NRA state. So the tough sentencing rules are somewhat offset by the rights of gunowners. We'll see how it plays out in the courts.

Fla. Gun Law to Expand Leeway for Self-Defense

[backrow]

Originally Posted by JWsleep

If I'm not mistaken, Florida has recently altered its laws concerning the use of deadly force. This state has been granting MORE rights to gun owners to use their weapons, even when they can retreat. Here's a quote from a recent post article on the new law:

Florida law already lets residents defend themselves against attackers if they can prove they could not have escaped. The new law would allow them to use deadly force even if they could have fled and says that prosecutors must automatically presume that would-be victims feared for their lives if attacked.

It now seems easier to prove self defense, even though the penalties for gun crimes has gone up. Sean knew these guys were dangerous. He went to ask them about the ATVs, felt threatened, pulled his piece, even though he could have retreated. A scuffle insued. Sean and co. left the scene without shooting. They were later SHOT AT by the folks they confronted, substantiating the fear that led to the pulling of the pistol.

I very much doubt that this is anything like what occurred, but the door is open to self defense, given the new law. Also, the prospect of this defense may make a plea bargain more likely.

Now, Sean's gun was most likely not registered, but we haven't seen a charge of possessing an unlicensed fire arm--Florida is a big NRA state. So the tough sentencing rules are somewhat offset by the rights of gunowners. We'll see how it plays out in the courts.

Fla. Gun Law to Expand Leeway for Self-Defense

JWSleep! That is a very creative and thoughtful defense! Call D. Rosenhaus!

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Unfortunately JWSleep, the right of self-defense doesn't extend to situations where you (ST) go looking for criminals (the thiefs).

[JWsleep]

Originally Posted by Ramseyfan

Unfortunately JWSleep, the right of self-defense doesn't extend to situations where you (ST) go looking for criminals (the thiefs).

If I go looking to gun down some criminals, of course it's not self defense. But if I go to talk to someone and feel treatened by them, I am entitled to defend myself. And if I'm going into a situation that I think might be dangerous, can't I have a gun ready? That's what guns are for (on this line of reasoning)--self defense. As I said, I really doubt that anything like nthis is what happened, but it might be a reasonable line of defense, given the new Florida statute.

But Sean probably has been witnesses by all his "boys" saying "I'm gonna get those suckas" etc. And I'm sure that his "friend" who got pinched with him will say whatever he can to get off the hook. So it's going to be messy. But all this is to get a plea bargain, so maybe the prosecuter will think twice before challanging a recently passed law protecting gun rights in a state that's very pro-gun. Do you really want to seem anti-gun when you've got to be elected in Florida as a DA?

All this is conjecture. Who knows what will happen?

Drew doesn't return my calls, backrow! What's with that guy?!?!

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by JWsleep

If I go looking to gun down some criminals, of course it's not self defense. But if I go to talk to someone and feel treatened by them, I am entitled to defend myself.

That's kind of a fine line though. The definition of self-defense according to the law might vary from what you think is self-defense. From what I have studied in the past, I believe you can shoot an intruder and claim self-defense in your house, but outside the house, things can be a different story.

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by skinsguy

That's kind of a fine line though. The definition of self-defense according to the law might vary from what you think is self-defense. From what I have studied in the past, I believe you can shoot an intruder and claim self-defense in your house, but outside the house, things can be a different story.

It's actually even more restrictive than that. Actually, only in very few states can you actually shoot someone solely on the basis that they have broken into your house. The reasoning is that the right to property is inferior to the right to life. Therefore, (and I know this seems F'd up) a very large majority of states would find that the intruder's right to life supersedes your right to protect your property. As such, the only time you can shoot an intruder is when you are protecting the life or physical well-being of yourself or your family member. In other words, if you get up in the middle of the night, and catch a guy carrying your tv, you can't shoot him unless you have a legitimate fear that your life is in danger (for example, if he has a gun). Same thing for if you shoot him in the back if he starts to run.......do that and you will go to jail in most states because if he's fleeing, you can't claim you felt your life was in danger. If you catch him sneaking into your kids' bedroom, then in most states fire away because most juries will just assume your fear was reasonable. I know this seems messed up, and most of us would fire away at any guy climbing in our window, but the law doesn't actually allow you to in most states. In fact some states are still so messed up that they actually impose a duty on you to flee from your own house if you can before using deadly force against the intruder (fortunately that is a very small majority and most states have abolished the duty to flee your own residence).

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by PSUSkinsFan21

It's actually even more restrictive than that. Actually, only in very few states can you actually shoot someone solely on the basis that they have broken into your house. The reasoning is that the right to property is inferior to the right to life. Therefore, (and I know this seems F'd up) a very large majority of states would find that the intruder's right to life supersedes your right to protect your property.

Actually, that doesn't sound as screwed up as you think. Going by the assumption that the right to life wins over right of property, then it makes perfect sense. One great example is the guy that the LA police cornered on the freeway today. The police could have easily shot the guy to death for committing a crime, but instead, they took every precaution to ensure that not only would innocent citizens be safe, but that the cops would be relatively safe and that the guy running from the police would be unharmed.

Of course I don't know how it all turned out, but you don't shoot somebody for stealing something from you.

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by JWsleep

If I go looking to gun down some criminals, of course it's not self defense. But if I go to talk to someone and feel treatened by them, I am entitled to defend myself. And if I'm going into a situation that I think might be dangerous, can't I have a gun ready? That's what guns are for (on this line of reasoning)--self defense. As I said, I really doubt that anything like nthis is what happened, but it might be a reasonable line of defense, given the new Florida statute.

Actually, in your scenario, you would be wrong in pulling a gun unless you had a legitimate fear of serious and imminent bodily harm or death. If ST had a gun or some other deadly weapon pulled on him, then that's one thing. If he got into an argument, started to feel "threatened" and then pulled a gun, that's an entirely different situation. The situation you are trying to condone would make it legal for any person to pull a gun on anyone they are arguing with as soon as they feel that person might take a swing at them. I can assure you, that is not the definition of self-defense.

Self-defense has to bear some relationship to the initial attack/threat. If someone punches you, you can punch them back to defend yourself, but you can't resort to deadly force and kill them. Likewise, if someone threatens to punch you, you can't threaten to kill them. I'm not sure exactly what that "new Florida law" says about self-defense, but until I see the actual wording of the statute, I have my doubts that it's as liberal as you've stated in allowing citizens to claim self defense in pulling out a lethal weapon every time they feel "threatened".

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Did he have the gun with him when he went back? Because I think that's just where the assault came in and we can deal with that.

[JWsleep]

I believe that it's a moot point because this statute doesn't take effect until October 1st. But the new FLA law (potentially) alters the situation regarding justified self-defense. It basically says you no longer have to "retreat" if you can before defending yourself. And it's not limited to home invasion. It aims to redress the worries that PSUskinsfan 21 spoke about. Here the sections that seem most relevant to Sean's case:

(3)A person who is not engaged in an unlawful
activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or
she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right
to stand his or her ground and meet force with force,
including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is
necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to
himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of
a forcible felony.

(4) A person who unlawfully and by force enters or
attempts to enter a person's dwelling, residence, or occupied
vehicle is presumed to be doing so with the intent to commit
an unlawful act involving force or violence.

One question is whether he had the right to be there. Another is whether he was justified in concluding that he was under sufficient threat to warrant a deadly response. But if he can show that he had a right to be there, and legitemately felt threatened, I think this statute would authorize him to pull his gun. Or it would if it were in effect. (As I said, I take it it's a moot point, though it does show you the FLA attitude about self-defense, which may well play in Sean's favor.)

Here's a link to the full statute: SB 436

Here again is the WPost article on the law: Fla. Gun Law to Expand Leeway for Self-Defense

[RedskinRat]

RamseyFan, no felony arrest record? Oh, come on!