Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Posted on 07/30/2005 9:50:34 PM PDT by freepatriot32
After his adult son shot a man in the leg Wednesday and sheriff's investigators took his son to jail, James Loudon had many questions.
Some were about the details of the shooting, which he and his construction worker son say was self-defense. Loudon, a retiree from Chicago, didn't see the shooting but he thinks he knows most of those details now.
His remaining questions are mostly about a new Florida law. It was advertised as expanding the right to use firearms and deadly force when people think they are threatened with illegal violence.
Loudon hopes that law, lauded by the governor and backed by the National Rifle Association, will protect his son. He hopes the law, combined with witness accounts, will lead prosecutors to drop the aggravated battery charge listed in the Sarasota County Sheriff's Office arrest report.
But at the same time, he told me he also fears that the law might have encouraged his son to shoot when maybe he didn't really have to.
"I don't think he would have been quite as anxious to pull the gun" were it not for that law, Loudon told me.
His son -- James Victor Loudon, 36 – has a concealed firearm permit. The father says his son was also well aware of the new law, which allows potential victims of violence to use deadly force if in fear in situations where state law previously required an attempt to retreat if possible.
That evening, the younger Loudon had gone to help his teenage stepdaughter change a tire. The man he shot was the same man his stepdaughter believed had slashed the tire.
Witnesses confirmed that the man, 19-year-old Andrew James Vavrik, was driving by and yelling obscenities while the tire change was going on. When Vavrik passed by again and then stopped nearby, the younger Loudon approached his car. According to Loudon's lawyer, he never got closer than 10 or 15 feet away, and intended only to urge Vavrik to stay around to talk to law officers who had already been called.
Vavrik later told investigators that Loudon first threatened to kill him and then, without provocation, shot through Vavrik's car door, hitting him in the leg. But Loudon's lawyer, Fred Mercurio, says Loudon made no threat and never showed his concealed handgun until Vavrik intentionally drove his car at him. Loudon got out of the way, drew his gun and fired, Mercurio says.
So Mercurio has hopes that charges will be dropped and that Vavrik could soon be the one charged
The details clearly matter. I don't know which account is closer to the truth.
But even if Vavrik was being a total jerk, and even if Loudon approached without violent intent and Vavrik almost ran him over, the law may not make this any easier to sort out. For one thing, if Vavrik felt threatened by the approaching Loudon, maybe he was entitled to use his car as a self-defense weapon.
The elder Loudon can't help but wish his son had simply gotten out of the way and left it at that. But who knows what would have happened next?
"He thought he was in the right" to use the gun, the father told me. "By passing this law, the politicians have created a very confusing situation."
Maybe so. But these situations have always been confusing, and always will be. There is often no easy way to know who was more at fault.
Sometimes it is the one who started it. Sometimes it is the one who escalated it. Sometimes it is the one who escalated it all the more.
And almost always, everyone involved feels justified no matter what any law says.
Tom Lyons can be contacted at tom.lyons@heraldtribune.com or (941) 957-5367
ping
Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here
Can't really judge the facts from the liberal press account, but I don't think the castle docrine is going to help a guy who shot someone that was still in his car.
BTTT
A car is a deadly weapon.
His dad should shut his trap.
In these types of instances, I break it down like this.
Louden came to help his daughter change her tire did not seek anyone out. He was minding his own business. He and his daughter were concerned with getting the tire fixed, and getting out of there.
Vavrick drove by in his car and was seeking someone out. He drove by several times.
IMO, Louden and his daughter had every right to be fearful of the action of Vavrick.
If Vavrick who drove by heckling Louden and his daughter hadn't been there, this wouldn't have happened.
If I were the judge, I'd have to think that Vavrick driving by in the car was the instigator, and therefore more culpable.
BTW, Louden's father isn't exactly who I'd want talking to people about me in this instance. He's terrible.
Re: Liability and politics
A quick glance at LAPD’s use-of-force policy:
SHOOTING AT A MOVING VEHICLE. Firearms shall not be discharged at a moving vehicle unless a person in the vehicle is immediately threatening the officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle. For the purposes of this Section, the moving vehicle itself shall not presumptively constitute a threat that justifies an officer's use of deadly force. An officer threatened by an oncoming vehicle shall move out of its path instead of discharging a firearm at it or any of its occupants.
Dead men tell no tales.
For argument's sake: Why not just get out of the way?
Cops vs. Cars
http://www.policedriving.com/article107.htm
And the left-wing press is at it again.
I'm 90% certain this was justified. This guy is a CCW permit holder, probably NRA member, possibly a veteran, and maybe even a freeper. In other words, just like you and me.
But we all know some folks in the firearms realm who just ain't right and end up messing it up for all of us by giving the Brady bunch examples upon which to expand.
It looks like this dude's biggest mistake was confiding in his father.
dang straight...
"The elder Loudon can't help but wish his son had simply gotten out of the way."
"I don't think he would have been quite as anxious to pull the gun"
And the Brady Campaign is leaving sonic booms over the eastern sea board as they convene.
We don't really care how they do it in LA.
Cops here in Florida shoot perps often when they are using a vehicle as a deadly weapon.
And I believe that LA policy was just changed. Their loss.
The father's a dumbass. Reporter probably planted a few seed questions about the new law when talking to the father.
Funny thing is the new law doesn't take effect until Oct 1. Guess the reporter forgot that juicy part.
Besides, even under the current law, given these circumstances with his sister there, disabled vehicle, perp in his vehicle acting menacingly, I'd go with a good shoot.
He should have shot him in the head- end of case...
Maybe there was no way to get out of the way?
I haven't seen a diagram of the location or timeline, have you?
But Loudon's lawyer, Fred Mercurio, says… Loudon got out of the way, drew his gun and fired.
If this is true, I don't see a self defense defense making it.
Armed with a car.
4000 lbs of rolling steel and assorted other material mass vs the human body...
I'm gonna shoot the SOB in the head and I will call it self-defense.
I doubt it. Only in the event Vavrik HAD to pass Loudon to leave the area. Vavrik had no compelling interest in remaining at the scene. Loudon was there to change a tire, with the vehicles owner who was a relative, and whom he had given a ride.
Indirectly, (given that he suspected Vavrik had slashed the tire), he was defending property by not leaving.
From the story, there was nothing to prevent Vavrik from using the vehicle to escape, which (imho) would have been the wiser course of action.
If corroborative testimony is tight and indicates that Vavrik was using the vehicle to threaten Loudon, it should be ruled a good shoot.
Daddy should learn when to shut up, though.
I have better things to do that argue with you about what would or would not happen before, during or after a situation like this OR listen to YOU try to tell ME what I would do in that scenario, so take your "brainless ego" crap and move on.
And F*** the lawyerscum!!!
ROFLMAO!
always shot first...ask questions later..at least your still alive to do so....
Sounds like her Dad was not only defending himself but his daughter from crazy ex boy friend.
Bingo! I almost guarantee that the reporter worked hard to get quotes that he could use in the version of the story that he wanted to write.
I notice that he did not have any quotes from the daughter or from people who knew both the daughter and the former boyfriend.
This is one of those instances where a restraining order could have done some good. It would have clearly put the heckler/boyfriend in the legal wrong.
Dumba$$ dem voting, gun hater is putting his son in hot water just so he can hate a good gun law.
The driver returned numerous times and used his car as a weapon. Case closed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.