SUV for self defense.

M

MR.G

New member
Interesting verdict in Florida today.
http://www.tampabays10.com/news/local/article.aspx?storyid=36743
Thai Restaurant Owner: NOT GUILTY
Tampa, Florida - A Jury in Hillsborough County Circuit Court has found restaurant owner Lawrence Storer not guilty.

Storer was on trial for manslaughter in the 2003 death of 24-year-old Shantavious Wilson.

Storer was rennovating his restaurant one night, when Wilson robbed him at gunpoint. Storer then ran down Wilson in his Ford Explorer SUV, killing Wilson.

A jury of four men and two women took five hours of deliberation before they reached their decision.

The defense argued that if provoked, a citizen had the right to chase and even kill in the heat of passion.

The father of Shantavious Wilson left the courtroom with tears in his eyes, but he refused to comment on the verdict. Earlier in the trial, he said that if Storer were to be acquitted, it would send the message that people can take the law into their own hands. He says that even though his son's actions were wrong, Storer had to be accountable for his own actions as well.

Prosecutors say they respect the jury's verdict, but still stand behind the case they presented.

Storer is the owner of Sumos Thai restaurant on Twiggs St., just a couple of blocks from the courthouse where he was acquitted
 
Mr. Wilson, you raised a thug. I am glad he is gone from this earth. I weep no tears for him. I am glad that the jury did the right thing.:)
 
sad, isn't it? Another young black criminal killed by his victim. The real sad part is that young Shantavious's Dad was not so involved when the lad was alive, as when he was dead.
 
What does the criminal's race have to do with anything?


As the man said, what his son did was wrong but what the other guy did may have also been wrong. Of course we don't know the details of the case but I surely don't see how it could be right to chase someone down with a vehicle and kill them once the immediate threat to life and limb has been averted. Now if Wilson was still pointing the firearm at Storer who happened to be in his vehicle and opted to hit him with the SUV as oppossed to reversing and risking being shot, that's one thing. On the other hand if, going by the phrase "chase and even kill in the heat of passion." it sounds like Storer was able to get into his SUV and chase down Wilson who may or may not have been a threat anymore.
 
Redworm:

I don't know what's more shocking... this verdict or the fact that I agree with you!!!!:eek:

This is the raw tribal vigilantism that Gorge Bush was accusing the Minutemen of persuing. This is wrong, it evades every concept of a code of law, and has no parallel to self defense.

I abhorr the decision of this jury and personally hold them in contempt of the law.

Maybe I'll go fill up my SUV and take a drive to florida.:barf:

Just kidding.
 
Jalal Harb, Prosecutor:
“People believe how dare you, How can you come and point a gun to my head and take my property?”
After the verdict, dozens stopped by Sumos Thai restaurant to offer support and congratulate Storer. The small impromptu gathering took place on the very sidewalk where Storer was robbed in October, 2003, beginning his three year legal nightmare.
 
Its not called self defence when you pursue your attacker and kill him after the event is over, its called revenge.

If someone is carjacking you, and you run him down, perhaps then I would see fit to agree that its reasonable, but from what I've read its murder.
 
The defense argued that if provoked, a citizen had the right to chase and even kill in the heat of passion.
Click to expand...
"He was spray painting racial epithets on my vehicle, so I chased him down and kicked his head in. It was all in the heat of passion, your honor."

Bad precedent, IMO.
 
Is it really revenge?

Its not called self defence when you pursue your attacker and kill him after the event is over, its called revenge.
Click to expand...

I'd say more along the lines of vigilantism. Go to any democratic society in Asia, no one will care if a criminal is killed/beaten severely if the attacker is pursued by the victim. Heck in some parts public beatings of criminals are common. Is it wrong? I don't know to tell you the truth, because a part of me is glad that one less scumbag is walking around endangering others, that motherf*(&$er got what he deserved. Who's to say that criminal wouldn't do it again? And what if that criminal was left alive but goes to prison for short sentence and then comes back out again? Even worse, what if he wasn't caught? Yes I understand the idea that without the justice system the idea of law and order kinda becomes a moot point.


Epyon
 
If both the kid and the restarant owner had gone at it in SUVs and the one ran down the other, it would have been a road rage incident. Everyone would have said it was nutty to react like that.

As it stands, I can't see a big difference here. One guy ran down another with his car. Plain and simple.

The threat was over and the kid was leaving. I am not defending the kid by the way.

As much as I am a law and order believer, it sure sounds like pure revenge to me.
 
I agree with Redworm, azredhawk44 and gfen if their was no more threat then its revenge and murder but I do belive they had the right to chase him down and subdue him but not kill him. now if he was robbing them while they were in the car and ran him over during the threat it was self-defence. I belive in self defence because I belive life is a precious thing and im not willing to give mine up when it either me or them, but when the threat is gone no one has to die.
 
The general concept is that you have the right to use lethal force to PREVENT death or serious injury. Acting after the fact is murder. The ruling is contrary to similar rulings .I wonder if it will be reversed. We owe thanks for taking out the thug.
 
The paradox of it all...

It must go through the legalities and such, yet the phrase, "For every rule there is an exception" comes to mind, but it is a dilemma. On one hand it's good this stupid punk will no longer be terrorizing people, on the other hand the restaurant owner did it on a spur of the moment and did it AFTER the fact of the matter. I guess we chalk this one up to karma or whatever you believe in, and call it even?


Epyon
 
"Shantavious." :D heehee... That's, um, that's a good name...

These days, the more and more I read of wanton acts of demented violence, greed, robbery, murder... the more and more I am less and less opposed to vigilantism.

I'm sorry, but call me a product of the environment, but as things go from bad to worse, folks, SOMETHING has to wrest control back from the psychopaths who are having their way with the good people of society.

I can't fully get behind chasing this useless pile of dung down with the SUV; that's why I wish Shorer had had a gun on him to do the job right at the moment the crime was perpetrated against him. No fuss, no muss.


-azurefly
 
epyon said:
Yes I understand the idea that without the justice system the idea of law and order kinda becomes a moot point.
Click to expand...


I agree with a lot of what you said. I've read of some other countries where entire communities get together and beat to death criminals they have caught. Sometimes they put flaming tires around their necks, even.

Regarding your final point, the quote above: even if the justice system and law and order can become moot, the ideas of right and wrong still persist. Absent a justice system and a law against murder, murder is still wrong. Absent a law against robbery, robbery is still wrong. And the victims of those crimes still have every right to fight back against their attackers, even absent a working justice system.


-azurefly
 
The defense argued that if provoked, a citizen had the right to chase and even kill in the heat of passion.
Click to expand...

I look at this as if I had been on the jury, and the above is exactly why I would have acquitted as well.

Additionally, the criminal action was totally initiated by the deceased, and if I am ever on a jury, there is no way I would EVER convict THE VICTIM for killing in any manner or with any weapon while they are being attacked or robbed.

I see this the other way around in that, as a juror, I could not live with myself for convicting someone who is the true victim of the crime. The restaraunt owner was just peacefully living his life and doing his job and was not in any way responsible for the (thankfully now-dead) perp in deciding to rob him.
The way I see it, the prosecution was wanting to jail someone for peacefully living his life and doing his everyday job. What is this... ENGLAND?

Carter
 
These days, the more and more I read of wanton acts of demented violence, greed, robbery, murder...
Click to expand...

...

SOMETHING has to wrest control back from the psychopaths who are having their way with the good people of society.
Click to expand...

I fail to see which side you're on, because as I read it, you suggest that driving over people is clearly acceptable behaviour if you accuse them of committing a wrong, courts be damned.

I dunno, that seems to smack of "psychopathic" to me.
 
I fail to see which side you're on, because as I read it, you suggest that driving over people is clearly acceptable behaviour if you accuse them of committing a wrong, courts be damned.
Click to expand...

It sounds like you're making up a new scenario and not addressing the specific situation as noted.

The restaraunt owner was not "accusing" the criminal of anything. The FACT that the criminal was actively attempting to rob the restaraunt owner was 100% ESTABLISHED in a court of law.
It appears that you're trying to suggest that the perp was just minding his own business but "looking" like a bad guy when the restaraunt owner just went off in his head and got crazy and ran him over.

If we follow your logic to it's logical conclusion, we'll be in the same situation as in the UK where a home owner can defend himself against a home invasion and the HOMEOWNER ended up in jail for defending himself in his own home.

God help us if we go that direction.

And what's with the "courts be damned" comment? In this case, the court system was TOTALLY involved in deciding the facts of the case and ending up with a ruling by a jury appointed by the court. Where do you see a "courts be damned" in that?

If we end up with a society where criminals can assume there is NO risk to their criminal activities, then we are totally screwed.

Carter
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top