SUV for self defense.

Lawrence Storer hopped into his SUV, chased down and killed Shantavious Wilson over ~$15. I think calling that self defense is a bit of a stretch. It's definitely in the realm of vigilante justice.

That being said, considering that Mr. Wilson was a registered sex offender in addition to his other crimes, I can't help but feel that Mr. Storer has done society a favor.
 
Lawrence says it’s been a traumatic experience.

Lawrence Storer, Acquitted of Manslaughter
“We can all say what we would do in a perfect sense. But, from my experience, I'll always remember the emotions that get attached to situations like this. They are not normal.”
 
A little vigilantism is a wonderful thing, so long as it can hold up in court afterwards. In Storer's case it did; he was victimized by a criminal and known pervert. If Wilson had NOT robbed him, would this have happened? If Wilson was not a habitual criminal, would the jury have found his death acceptable? Then who is entirely to blame for the scenerio from beginning to end?

An excellent decision and an excellent precedent.
 
the ideas of right and wrong still persist.
Click to expand...
They would if the ideas of right and wrong were static. Morality shifts. Two and a half centuries ago it wasn't murder to kill a black man in America. Four hundred years ago it wasn't murder to kill non-Christians in Europe. Two thousand years ago it wasn't murder to kill Christians in Rome. Concepts like morality and decency differ from generation to generation.
 
Actually, it wasn't illegal to kill blacks, non-Christians and Christians during those various periods. It was always immoral and was recognized by many at each time as such(otherwise the legality itself would have never changed). Unless one's morality is defined by the laws of the moment and the whims of society most morality does not change, or changes very, very slowly.
 
It wasn't considered immoral by the people doing it nor by the people that supported the societies that allowed it.
 
:confused: :confused: !!!!!!

That's not a proof morality has changed. It's evidence corrupt people had various levels of control and power during those times. Eventually saner heads, and a moral viewpoint that always existed, prevailed.
 
Two and a half centuries ago
Click to expand...
Quite some time ago the world was thought to be flat also.
What's that got to do with today?
Murdering another human being has NEVER been a morally accepted norm by any civilized society.
Unless you're talking about human sacrifices like the Inca indians performed.
Humans evolve.
And while some people will go to great lengths arguing in favor of "moral relevency", when backed into a corner they too admit that there really ARE things that are right and wrong in any civilized society.
Murder, theft, adultery, chid abuse, etc, etc are pretty well recognized world wide as "wrong", and have been for a very, very long time.
 
That's not a proof morality has changed. It's evidence corrupt people had various levels of control and power during those times. Eventually saner heads, and a moral viewpoint that always existed, prevailed.
Click to expand...
There have always and will always be corrupt people who are in control of things. Just sixty years ago it was considered moral by most of America's population to have seperate schools for black and white children. That wasn't because there were a few racists in Congress; the majority of the nation genuinely believed it was perfectly acceptable until a few saner heads changed their minds. Morality changes because it is solely a product of human sentience. There is no observable "good and evil" standard in the universe; we create those ideas and as we and our societies change and evolve so do our perceptions of each other and the world around us.

Quite some time ago the world was thought to be flat also.
What's that got to do with today?
Click to expand...
It shows how much humans change. To think that we can change so much yet the way we percieve the world and our interactions with each other doesn't is counterintuitive.
Murdering another human being has NEVER been a morally accepted norm by any civilized society.
Click to expand...
Egypt, Rome, Mongolia, Okinawa, Russia, India, America. In all of those societies homicide was accepted if the victim was not the same class as the killer. Or perhaps you don't consider them civilized? Who defines what qualifies as a civilized society? Was America uncivilized until the government decreed that a black man was a full human being and thus killing one was an act of murder?

Unless you're talking about human sacrifices like the Inca indians performed.
Humans evolve.
And while some people will go to great lengths arguing in favor of "moral relevency", when backed into a corner they too admit that there really ARE things that are right and wrong in any civilized society.
Murder, theft, adultery, chid abuse, etc, etc are pretty well recognized world wide as "wrong", and have been for a very, very long time.
Click to expand...
I've already suggested examples of how murder was not considered immoral just a relatively short time ago. Theft is not always considered immoral, especially when the theif is of a higher class than the victim. Many would define the practice of Mormons forcing teenage girls to marry old men a form of child abuse. Many would see simply spanking a child as abuse. Just because some of us may not does not mean we get to define what is or isn't child abuse.

Consider that our society will be thought of as grossly uncivilized two or three hundreds years from now. The simple fact that we all willingly subject our bodies to dangerous chemicals, eat meat and damage our planet may be as heinous to them as molesting a child is to us. The standard for "civilized" changes with each generation. The standards for decency and morality also change.
 
Redworm...

I like your statements, they all ring very true. To stay on topic though, this event happened because the man killed was a REPEAT criminal, AND REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER, what does that say about our justice system? Was this person a career criminal who just kept doing wrong because they let him out for good behavior? So a person who is convicted of a sex crime can walk freely to grope and harass women and children, yet a person who gets busted in their own house harming no one smoking weed gets a draconian prison sentence.

Personally, I'd prefer stricter punishments on sex offenders and intoxicated drivers. I guess it's because it stems from the fact that I know a lot of women who were victims of sex crimes, and the fact that a drunk driver hit my father and sister many years ago, but fortunately they had only minimal injuries. So what happened to that drunk driver? All he gets is a slap on the wrist and he's back out on the streets again.:mad: x infinity.


Epyon
 
Personally, I'd prefer stricter punishments on sex offenders and intoxicated drivers. I guess it's because it stems from the fact that I know a lot of women who were victims of sex crimes
Click to expand...
+1 I too have known to many women who were victims of sex crimes. but still doesnt give someone the right to murder him. Think about this isnt it a better revenge to put a registered sex offender in prison? just think about what happens to him their. Yes I agree they need to be more strict when it comes to sex crimes.
 
gunslinger555...

I didn't mean for death of a sex offender, if I was vague about that sorry. I did mean give a sex offender a prison sentence, as you have suggested. It's stupid to release a sex offender onto the streets thinking they won't do it again, even stupider is the idea that they should register themselves. What if they feel like not complying? Who's going to stop them the cops? They can haul @$$ to another state and keep a low profile commiting their disgusting acts.


Epyon
 
I like your statements, they all ring very true. To stay on topic though, this event happened because the man killed was a REPEAT criminal, AND REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER, what does that say about our justice system? Was this person a career criminal who just kept doing wrong because they let him out for good behavior? So a person who is convicted of a sex crime can walk freely to grope and harass women and children, yet a person who gets busted in their own house harming no one smoking weed gets a draconian prison sentence.

Personally, I'd prefer stricter punishments on sex offenders and intoxicated drivers. I guess it's because it stems from the fact that I know a lot of women who were victims of sex crimes, and the fact that a drunk driver hit my father and sister many years ago, but fortunately they had only minimal injuries. So what happened to that drunk driver? All he gets is a slap on the wrist and he's back out on the streets again. x infinity.


Epyon
Click to expand...

Thanks for putting it back on topic, I'm sorry for skewing it so much...and I'm sorry if what I say next does the same. :o

I also agree that harsher punishments for sex offenders and drink drivers are in order. My only concern is Wilson's classification of a sex offender. The problem stems from the fact that not all registered sex offenders have been convicted of actual sexual crimes. In many states adultery between two consenting adults is still against the law and can land someone on the sex offender registry. Sexual harrasment, which many times can be "proven" in court without much genuine evidence, can also put someone on the list.

Now if this man raped someone or molested a child or something of the sort then he certainly deserves to be registered in such a way. On the other hand we don't know if his ex simply claimed she was raped because of a bad breakup and the courts simply accepted her word over his. It happens. :(
 
I understand...

Yeah, sex crimes can be difficult to handle because the evidence isn't out on display like with a murder scene, robbery, etc. plus the fact that sometimes it can be because of a bad breakup and the person was just wanted to spite their ex by having them prosecuted as sex offenders, which means that all that valuable time and resource that could be used to catch a real criminal is being diverted because of personal selfish issues.


Epyon
 
"Assistant State Attorney Jalal Harb told the jury that after Wilson pulled the gun, Storer had enough presence of mind to hide $2,000 under a wheel well of his Explorer. He was led inside the restaurant, where he handed over a bag with $15.23 in change.

When Wilson walked outside, Storer locked his door and called 911. When Wilson ran, Storer left the safety of his restaurant to give chase, Harb said.

"The defendant locked the door," Harb said. "The robbery was over.""

- Googled up at random

"Storer's attorney, John Fitzgibbons, told the jury Tuesday morning that Florida law allows for "excusable homicide" when a killing is suddenly and sufficiently provoked and is committed in the heat of passion."

Florida law permits passionate reactions to a crime such as this. I'd say Mr. Storer was "suddenly and sufficiently provoked" when he had a gun pointed at him and was probably scared for his life when he was taken inside at gunpoint and robbed. Probably thought he would be shot dead on the spot. So he was angry and reacted and the law in FL says that's okay.

He took his phone outside, called 911, drove off after running crook and hit him 4 blocks away. I didn't see any details on the actual impact - whether or not the deceased pointed his bb gun at the vehicle.

The deceased ex-con pretty much brought it on himself.

John
 
. Many would define the practice of Mormons forcing teenage girls to marry old men a form of child abuse. Many would see simply spanking a child as abuse. Just because some of us may not does not mean we get to define what is or isn't child abuse.
Click to expand...

I see your point.
But regardless of how you see it, certain behaviours in OUR society have been deemed wrong, immoral, illegal or what have you.
Hence the laws that have been created against them.
Until we "evolve" further, those are the laws we follow, like it or not.

Theft is not always considered immoral, especially when the theif is of a higher class than the victim
Click to expand...

How do you figure that?:confused:

As for this incident, I'm REAL surprised at the verdict!
As much as I love the fact that we are rid of one more dirtbag in our society, once the threat of bodily harm was gone, I can't see any reason that would allow Stoner to go after, and run over, the dirtbag.
Except that he was REALLY pissed!!
I wonder what the jury would've said if Stoner had run the dirtbag over 2 days later?
Florida law allows for "excusable homicide" when a killing is suddenly and sufficiently provoked and is committed in the heat of passion."
Click to expand...
Seems to me that's open to a LOT of interpretation.
 
I see your point.
But regardless of how you see it, certain behaviours in OUR society have been deemed wrong, immoral, illegal or what have you.
Hence the laws that have been created against them.
Until we "evolve" further, those are the laws we follow, like it or not.
Click to expand...
I agree. I simply believe that vigilantism goes against the very concept of justice. Since not everyone has the same moral standards many people would no longer be afforded the same equal protections if we simply accepted the idea that one man - in this case, Storer - has the authority to be judge, jury and executioner after the threat to his life is gone.
 
"Its not called self defence when you pursue your attacker and kill him after the event is over, its called revenge."

No it's not, it's called justice. He didn't just get slapped, didn't get insulted, he got a f'n gun pointed at him. And people can't just get to go around pointin guns at people. Ain't right. Sooner or later he mighta shot someone. Would that have been preferable? What goes around comes around. (And to the Nth degree!)

And he didn't 'grease the wheels' over an 'accusation' of simple bad behavior, the offender commited a wrong so agregious that a quick death was far more lenient that what he deserved. What's the problem here?

Psychopathic is deeming the behavior of commiting armed robbery acceptable. (But he just didn't know better...Oh well :rolleyes: )

Edited: And why does everyone keep acting as if the threat to his life was over?! People don't just rob once! Heck, alot of times they come back to the exact same place. (probably due to it becoming their comfort zone...know what stops criminal comfort zones? All terrains probably...)
 
Maybe he felt that when the guy opened the bag and found that he only had 15.00 that he was going to come back and kill him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top