Concealed carry prevents road rage / hate crime


PDA






cchurchi
December 19, 2007, 02:25 PM
Yeah, +1 for the good guys:

http://www.local10.com/news/14889339/detail.html

If you enjoyed reading about "Concealed carry prevents road rage / hate crime" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
jlbraun
December 19, 2007, 02:32 PM
I hope the shooter didn't precipitate this by continuing the verbal altercation.

It also sounds like he didn't have room in front of his truck to get away.

Stover954rr
December 19, 2007, 02:39 PM
That is great, the BG got shot AND is getting charged with the original crime(s). Who knows, maybe the justice system is finally coming out of its downward spiral.

O.S.O.K.
December 19, 2007, 02:54 PM
has the "Castle Doctrine" law - no retreat required.

Liko81
December 19, 2007, 02:54 PM
Disclaimer: I do not for a second believe the man who got shot was deserving of any less, nor do I think the survivor should walk away.

How does this murder charge work? As I understand it, the legal test of manslaughter is "an act or failure to act that is understood to be inherently dangerous, performed with such reckless disregard for human life that it was the direct cause of a person's death". Murder is a similar act performed with either malicious intent or premeditation.

Therefore, to meet the burden of proof, the prosecutor is going to have to prove that the accused knew or should reasonably have known that attacking the shooter would likely result in the death of his companion. This must be proven despite the fact that the presence of the gun in the shooter's posession may not have been known. That I think will be the litmus test for the accusation; if that can be demonstrated, then the rest is easy: a death occurred, based on actions undertaken by the accused with malicious intent. There's murder two, and murder while committing an unrelated assault meets the standard of felony murder.

md7
December 19, 2007, 03:11 PM
it seems like florida has been a testing ground for the castle doctrine. it wasn't too long ago that some guy killed, in self defense, a couple of gang bangers after they tried to run him over with a jeep. and i read of a grocery store owner defending his property against some guys that were trying to rob his store. they met the same fate as the road ragers. looks like the events that have happened in florida would show the castle doctrine as a good thing that has proven to be effective not only in the streets, and homes of the citizens, but it has held up well in the courts.(to my knowlege the ccw'ers have been protected by the castle doctrine.) no charges or civil suits to my knowledge.

i never am glad to hear of someone dying, but am happy that that the good guy gets to go home to his family, and doesn't have to worry about geeting charged or civil suits and such.

rocinante
December 19, 2007, 03:30 PM
IIRC the guy in Fla that did in the thugs in a jeep did go on trial and was acquitted. Lots of righteous weeping for the gang bangers even with the survivor admitted they were going to beat him to death with their baseball bats.

MakAttak
December 19, 2007, 03:40 PM
Therefore, to meet the burden of proof, the prosecutor is going to have to prove that the accused knew or should reasonably have known that attacking the shooter would likely result in the death of his companion. This must be proven despite the fact that the presence of the gun in the shooter's posession may not have been known. That I think will be the litmus test for the accusation; if that can be demonstrated, then the rest is easy: a death occurred, based on actions undertaken by the accused with malicious intent. There's murder two, and murder while committing an unrelated assault meets the standard of felony murder.

It is my understanding that for felony murder, if anyone dies in commission of a felony, all parties responsible for the felony are also responsible for murder, whether or not the risk of someone dying was "reasonably" forseeable.

I don't think the burden of proof is that they thought someone could die, rather that they committed a felony and someone died as a result of it.

Edit: Apparently I am not correct. Though the letter is as I say, application tends to lean on "dangerous acts." In this case though, attacking someone with a knife should qualify as a "dangerous act" which could forseeably cause a death.

BobbyQuickdraw
December 19, 2007, 03:50 PM
Driver, Not Shooter Charged In Road Rage Incident
Deputies Say Man, Passenger Shot While Inciting Driver

POSTED: 11:03 am EST December 19, 2007

DEERFIELD BEACH, Fla. -- A man is charged with murder in a road rage incident even though police said he didn't pull the trigger.

The confrontation resulted in the driver's passenger being fatally shot. Police are also charging him with a hate crime because of language the man used during the incident.

On the afternoon of Dec. 13, Broward Sheriff's Office deputies responded to reports of two men having been shot in the middle of the road and another man standing near them with a gun.

When BSO deputies arrived at the intersection of Green Road and Powerline Road, they found two men -- Steven Lonzisero, 43, and Edward Borowsky, 28 -- lying in the road bleeding from gunshot wounds. Hygens Labidou, 49, told deputies he shot Borowsky and Lonzisero in a case of road rage.

Here's what Labidou told deputies happened: While traveling northbound on Powerline Road, all three men were involved in a verbal altercation after Lonzisero, driving a white Ford pickup truck with his 15-year-old daughter and Borowsky inside, accused Labidou of driving poorly.

The verbal altercation turned violent when Lonzisero stopped his truck at the intersection in front of Labidou's truck, Labidou said. Lonzisero, armed with a knife, got out of his truck and attacked Labidou, who remained in his vehicle, he said.

Lonzisero and Borowsky pounded on the truck, yelled racial profanities at Labidou and tried to open the door, according to Labidou.

Fearing for his life, Labidou fired several shots from his handgun, striking both men. They fell to the pavement and Labidou, along with witnesses, dialed 911, he said.

Lonzisero and Borowsky were transported to North Broward Medical Center, where Borowsky died Monday. BSO investigators have determined that Lonzisero will be charged with felony murder in the death of his companion. Even though he was not the shooter, under Florida law, a person can be charged with murder if someone dies while the accused is committing a felony.

Because of language Lonzisero used during the incident, he is also being charged with a hate crime.

Authorities said Labidou had a permit to carry the gun.

MachIVshooter
December 20, 2007, 12:20 AM
don't think the burden of proof is that they thought someone could die, rather that they committed a felony and someone died as a result of it.

Edit: Apparently I am not correct. Though the letter is as I say, application tends to lean on "dangerous acts." In this case though, attacking someone with a knife should qualify as a "dangerous act" which could forseeably cause a death.

As far as CO is concerned, you had it right the first time. One of the more recent cases was a women (Lisle Auman) and some friends who had committed B&E and were caught in the act by police. A chase ensued, in which Auman's group fired at police officers. The chase ended and Auman was taken into custody, but one of the group shot an officer, and she was convicted of felony murder. Lisl Auman's conviction was overturned after 5 years, though, as "the jury instruction on the predicate second-degree burglary charge was improper".

Most people felt that it shouldn't apply as she was already handcuffed in the cruiser when her friend shot the officer. But that wasn't what got her off, and the Supreme court upheld that being in police custody does not preclude the statute. I tend to side with "most people" on that one; she had already surrendered and thus was no longer engaged in felonious activity, which should have removed culpability for felony murder.

But barring such unusual and extreme cases as hers, I agree with the felony murder stautes. While it pushes the boundaries of the 8th amendment, it is a very strong deterrent. I do, however, believe that felony murder should be classified as murder two, not one, as the unintended death certainly doesn't constitute premeditation. But murder two is appropriate, as the death would not have occured if the felony had no been committed.

Law abiding citizens have nothing to fear from it. So long as you don't commit a felony, you won't have to worry about felony murder charges.

We in the firearms community constantly argue that there wouldn't be a problem with gun crime if the justice system didn't turn dangerous individuals loose on society. Felony murder is one of the few laws that gaurantees they won't. Is it a really harsh punishment? Absolutely. Will it make people think twice about committing armed robbery and the like? Most definitely.

I feel that it provides almost as much deterrence from violent crime as armed citizens do. Only problem is that many offenders don't know of felony murder's existence until they're convicted of it.

If you enjoyed reading about "Concealed carry prevents road rage / hate crime" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!