Roger that!
Posted on 07/14/2007 7:00:36 PM PDT by Graybeard58
Norman Borden, 44, of West Palm Beach, Fla., deserves everybody's gratitude. Last year, he was walking his dogs when three men in a Jeep tried to run him over. One of the three, Juan Mendez, 21, later admitted he and his pals intended to "rough him up." They had what a prosecutor described as "an arsenal" in the vehicle.
They never got a chance to carry out their attack. Mr. Borden was carrying a gun and shot five times through the windshield. To make sure he was safe, he fired another nine rounds into the side of the vehicle, severely wounding Mr. Mendez and killing his companions.
Mr. Borden acted in self-defense. Privately, prosecutor Craig Williams agreed; nevertheless, he charged Mr. Borden with murder and attempted murder so a jury could decide. A guilty verdict would have meant a life sentence without the possibility of parole.
Fortunately for Mr. Borden, Florida in 2005 became the first of 14 states to pass a "stand-your-ground law," which allows people being threatened to defend themselves. In other states, including Connecticut, self-defense may be invoked only in defense of one's home or if there was an attempt to retreat from the confrontation.
Among advocates of stand-your-ground laws is the National Rifle Association. Said spokeswoman Ashley Varner: "We believe that self-defense is an innate human right and the law should never put the innocent victim of a crime in a position of having to second-guess themselves."
In the Borden case, the jury agreed he acted in self-defense and acquitted him. Among those most relieved was Mr. Williams, the prosecutor: "It was pretty clear what the right thing to do was here."
The right thing was what Mr. Borden did. Faced with an imminent threat to his well-being and possibly to his life, and backed by a law that allowed him to defend himself, Mr. Borden acted without hesitation. The fate of his would-be assailants should help deter the next band of thugs prowling for a victim.
Jack King, spokesman for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, put it this way: "Most people would rather be judged by 12 than carried by six." Too bad Connecticut's legislature has been unable to recognize so obvious a truth and instead is intent finding new ways to help violent criminals turn law-abiding state residents into crime statistics.
Ping to a Republican-American Editorial.
If you want on or off this ping list, let me know.
Just for kicks, it appears. Thankfully the three amigos got what was coming.
did this defense shooting take place prior to the law being in place ?
otherwise, why try him ?
Guy oughta send the DA a bill.
Another Mike Nifong in training?
Could not agree more with your comment. The Florida Nifong, no doubt.
I suppose you could argue that if the "stand your ground law" has some sort of "reasonable apprehension" standard in it you have to let a jury decide. But many self-defense shootings never get past the grand jury stage.
So I don't know what's up. Maybe a Florida lawyer can tell us.
I meant to say, "this one would have been no-billed in the GRAND JURY room."
Actually it was probably worth it - getting this into case law is an important affirmation of self-defense.
Acquitted? Apparently there were no illegal immigrants on the jury.
Roger that!
I don’t get it. A prosecutor is supposed to ensure that justice takes place. If he knows something done was correct, and is relieved that the defendant was acquitted he had no business bringing the charge in the first damn place. He should be impeached!
To explain: a law of this type *must* be acid-tested before a jury before it really goes into effect. The prosecutor picked a slam-dunk case to try, but it sets an all-important precedent for courts throughout the State of Florida.
Had it not been tried as a criminal matter, the *next* time it did go before a jury, and probably not as clear cut, would be its acid test. By trying it in this case, it sets the law in concrete.
It seems to be unfair to the defendant, but actually, though it costs him a few thousand dollars, it might save him from a much higher penalty—a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the relatives of the attackers.
By having a jury cleanly find him “not guilty”, it will be much, much harder for them to sue him and win for wrongful death. It is hard as heck for a civil suit to win once a criminal jury has found for a defendant—with the exception of the O.J. Simpson trials.
It also reassures the public that even though it seemed like the shooter had every right to self defense, that the authorities carefully checked to see that he didn’t have an ulterior motive, or wasn’t just some kook who decided to kill strangers for fun. As determined by a jury of his peers.
So only on the surface does it seem unfair.
No kidding!
Since there is typically no statute of limitations on murder, the acquittal has permanently eliminated any possibility of a later conviction. Life might be quite unsettled having to consider that the next Nifong could take this prosecutor's place and go to extreme lengths trying to get a conviction.
Boy, I bet those perps were SURPRISED! Ha ha.
“Yo, yo, yo, man, gimme five dollars, gimme 5 dollars.”
“I have five dollars for each of you...”
Bang!
Bang!
Bang!
(Paraphrase of a New York subway conversation between Bernard Goetz and a few other riders, some years back.)
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.