Shooting in Florida

[fearless leader]

Here's the link: http://www.baynews9.com/content/36/2008/3/2/329234.html

Neighborhood argument turns deadly


Sunday, March 2, 2008


Charles Podany, has been charged with manslaughter.


THONOTOSASSA (Bay News 9) -- What started as a car speeding through an
east Hillsborough County neighborhood ended with a fatal shooting this
weekend.


The shooting happened late Friday night in Thonotosassa.


According to the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office, 24-year-old
Casey Landes was a passenger in a truck riding through Bayhills
Circle. Deputies said the truck was speeding through the neighborhood.


Neighborhood resident Charles Podany, 57, confronted the driver of the
truck but Landes ended up arguing with Podany, deputies said.


Casey Landes, 24, died at the scene after being shot Friday night.


According to authorities, Landes exited the truck and started fighting
with Podany.


Podany, who was armed, shot and killed Landes, deputies said.


Charles Podany, who does possess a Concealed Weapons Permit, was
arrested and charged with manslaughter.


===========================================================

 

[Big45]

According to authorities, Landes exited the truck and started fighting with Podany.

So the authorities admit Landes got out and started fighting with Podany? Why is Podany being charged with manslaughter again? I thought this was the "Gunshine state"?

 

[strat81]

So the authorities admit Landes got out and started fighting with Podany? Why is Podany being charged with manslaughter again? I thought this was the "Gunshine state"?

Probably because Podany "confronted" the driver. Seems like a lot of things went wrong with this one, on both sides.

 

[Big45]

So if someone tackled my wife at the mall and I "confronted" he/she about it, and then they attacked me, I better not defend myself?

 

[fearless leader]

I wasn't there, so I can't judge for sure, but it sounds like both men over reacted.

The shooter, Podany, confronted a speeding driver. No polite way I know to go about that.
A call to the police would have been more prudent IMHO.

The driver, Landes, over reacted by engaging Podany in fisticuffs, instead of ignoring or giving the man on the ground the universal symbol.

If Podany can prove he was in fear of his life, by demonstrating circumstances that a "reasonable, prudent person" would have been in fear of his life, he can beat it.

 

[lacoochee]

Charles Podany, who does possess a Concealed Weapons Permit, was arrested and charged with manslaughter.

It's not over they have just charged him with manslaughter. He will get a chance to explain to a jury why he was in fear of his life, likely disparity of force. The article does not mention his condition when he shot, did he wait until the last possible moment, how badly was he injured etc. these will come into play. This does not fall under the stand your ground law, the shooter started the confrontation.

Maybe the next set of billy bad ^%$$$% that think that it is perfectly reasonable to go 50mph on residential road that get called on it will think twice before jumping out of their truck to kick someones tail.

 

[mekender]

sorry, the shooter started a verbal conflict... the dead guy escalated it to physical violence... without knowing the rest of the details, im gonna blame the dead guy for escalating the situation... although it was probably not smart for the guy with the gun to be initiating an argument like that

 

[Hkmp5sd]

Neighborhood resident Charles Podany, 57, confronted the driver of the truck but Landes ended up arguing with Podany, deputies said.

You do not confront speeders if you are a civilian, especially one with a CCW. You take the information and call the police. Podany started the fight by confronting two individuals. The fight escalated until deadly force was used. There was no need for the fight in the beginning. Manslaughter.

 

[Bones11b]

The way my LEO friends and associates across the state of FL have explained it to me is as follows. If you have a ccw you need to be more responsible than the next guy or gal. Make sure the other person is the one to initiate a conflict never initiate conflict yourself. You will be held to a higher standerd than the "average Joe" so conduct yourself as such. Many times I find that carrying a weapon causes me to keep my thoughts to myself, or leave a situation unresolved due to the fact that if it escalates I will likely have to use my weapon. Unarmed I'm much more apt to tell someone off, correct their behavior, or all around be myself.

 

[Spyvie]

I was not there, and I know nothing more about this than I've read here, but... I'd say both parties are idiots, and both of them payed or will pay dearly.

IMHO, you would have to be a dangerous idiot to get out of a car and initiate a physical confrontation with someone who is screaming at you to slow down. Likewise, someone carrying a weapon has no business looking for trouble, and if they do, they will regret it sooner or later..

There was a very similar incident in the Denver area last November, the shooter was an off duty sheriff's deputy (correctional officer, not a patrolman) the shootie was drunk and actually beat up the deputy. Concerns arose because the deputy is the one who initiated the confrontation over a flicked ciggarett butt. The deputy was indicted but ended up walking away. (probably rightly so, but I still think he was a dangerous idiot)

http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_7473012

David Rossiter, 25, of Sheridan, Mont., was killed Nov. 2 by Daniel Montana, 49, of Golden after a roadway dispute, according to Lakewood police.

A fight apparently erupted over a cigarette butt thrown from a pickup truck driven by Michael Hunter, 24, that landed on Montana's car. Rossiter was a passenger in Hunter's truck.

An autopsy report released last week showed that Rossiter was shot twice — once in the hip and fatally in the chest — from several feet away.

Stephanie Kruer, attorney for the Rossiter family, said Rossiter had bullet damage to fingers on both hands, which she said showed he was trying to defend himself.

The shooting occurred about 10:30 p.m. on the westbound off-ramp of West Sixth Avenue at Indiana Street.

"There is no further information available at this time about this investigation or how long it might take," said DA spokeswoman Pam Russell.

Rossiter, an all-state football player and Eagle Scout, was buried Sunday in Sheridan after services attended by hundreds of of people.

Hunter is free on $10,000 bond on a drunken-driving charge.

Montana has been placed on administrative leave during the investigation.

http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_7761179

Montana told Lakewood police he got into a fight with two men, later identified as Rossiter and one of Rossiter's co-workers, Michael D. Hunter II, after Hunter flicked a cigarette out of a pickup that landed on Montana's car. Both vehicles were stopped at a light.

A fight broke out after Montana got out of his vehicle to get rid of the cigarette. Hunter told investigators that Montana yelled at him, but Montana denied that.

Montana told investigators Rossiter and Hunter punched and kicked him 30 times, knocking him to the ground three times. Montana said he nearly lost consciousness.

Hunter backed off when Montana drew his gun and identified himself as a deputy, Montana told investigators, but he said Rossiter charged him, ignoring warnings to stop.

"Montana said he felt he could not 'go round two,'" the report said, and fired two shots.

The coroner said Rossiter was hit in the hip and chest.

A witness who told investigators he was stopped directly behind Montana's car said he saw two mean severely beating a third man. The witness said one of the two men made a "pretty quick lunge" toward the third before the third man fired two shots.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

I think the moral of the cigarette story is that the guy whose car was hit should have played it cool, either by leaving it there or casually removing it. A quarter-inch of damaged hood paint never killed anyone. He should not have made eye contact, even if the driver who threw it made some snide comment. There was no cause for escalation of any sort. And now a man is dead. Through a good part of his own fault? No doubt. Was this trip really necessary? No.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Greell]

Keep in mind that this is a media report, and their "reporting" style may be different from the truth, have bad wording, and/or be different from the chronological events that happened.


also, I studied different forms of law for a while in college, and you'd be surprised how courts determine fault based on the injurer and the victim.

a little doctrine called Last Clear Chance which means that the injurer (in this case the guy defending himself) "confronted" the man, and that caused a fight to break out in which he pulled his weapon and fired. in this case it means that because of the victims poor level of precaution, the injurer (again the guy that defended himself) is expected to take on a greater level of precaution in place of the victims low level of precaution.

to give a rough explanation, according to this particular doctrine, the shooter should have taken his "last clear chance" to avoid this situation, by not enticing the man (if that is indeed what the article is suggesting that he did) and he should have gone about his business.

This may or may not be the same doctrine that they will use, but it's an example of how people that "defend" themselves can find themselves in a legal bind, if the only reason they were forced to "defend" themselves, is because they provoked the situation, then it may become manslaughter / murder / assault, what-have-you.

 

[tegemu]

The article said he was charged but there was no mention of whether or not he was convicted. Many of our self defense shootings here in the Gunshine State result in Felony Charges but the shooter is not convicted.

 

[security6]

a little doctrine called Last Clear Chance

Good for you for remembering something you learned in college. I've forgotten most of what I learned. However, you did forget one thing. "Last clear chance" applies in negligence actions, not criminal. See the legal dictionary at findlaw for an explanation.

You do not confront speeders if you are a civilian, especially one with a CCW. You take the information and call the police. Podany started the fight by confronting two individuals. The fight escalated until deadly force was used. There was no need for the fight in the beginning. Manslaughter.

All of my comments below assume the news article is correct. Of course, reality may be different.

I agree that your comment is a good idea to follow, but I disagree that it is the correct legal standard to base a manslaughter charge on. The shooter started a verbal confrontation. The deceased started the physical confrontation. My experience has been that almost all verbal confrontations do NOT escalate into physical confrontations. I wouldn't have expected the shooter to anticipate that a physical confrontation would result from his calling the deceased's friend out for speeding.

 

[xjchief]

You do not confront speeders if you are a civilian, especially one with a CCW. You take the information and call the police. Podany started the fight by confronting two individuals. The fight escalated until deadly force was used. There was no need for the fight in the beginning. Manslaughter.

Oh, I see, only the police have any right at all to confront someone who's breaking the law and endangering other people's lives and property.

I'll remember that next time I'm with my friend driving recklessly down a residential neighborhood and when confronted I'll jump out of my truck and, with a 2:1 advantage, assault someone twice my age because he dares to question my stupid friend's dangerous driving habits. I will further be completely amazed that I end up dead after getting in a fight with him over it.

Based on the facts as presented in the article, the shooter only confronted them about their high-speed driving. Joker A and B decided to escalate the situation by assaulting the shooter. The shooter responded with force in the interests of self defense. Where's the problem?

 

[NG VI]

Chief and Security6 are thinking like I am, the man who shot just called them out on speeding through a residential neighborhood. he was almost 50, there is no reason to believe he thought he was Rambo, or looking for trouble, or trying to be a police officer. and how many threads do we have where the police failed to respond to robberies and murders? what makes you think that they would track down this guy for speeding?

There is nothing wrong with letting someone know they are being being dangerous and need to stop, that is not starting a fight, last I knew men were men and it was ok to let someone know they're F***ing up and should stop.
The very same people who hate citizens with guns also are the ones trying to teach that nobody has any right to tell anyone else they are wrong, and that everything in life is a gray area, that people should do what they "feel" like, and that you are a bad person for telling others no or stop.

 

[R127]

Any of you Tampa Bay area members familiar with this area in particular? I have to do work up in Zephyr Hills and Dade City on occasion and I take 301 up. Two things most people here are probably unaware of.

Number One: careless driving is a huge problem out here. Maybe a year ago a careless driver similar to Landes backed over and crushed to death a toddler who was playing well on his own property. There are very very frequent collisions on 301 which is a two lane rural highway with a 60mph speed limit that just isn't fast enough for some careless drivers who pull out in front of, crash into and very often KILL people in oncoming cars they didn't see.

Number Two: Bay Hills is a bad area. Drug infested and robbery and violence are not at all uncommon. Go hang out at the gas station on the corner for an evening if you don't believe it. There is every reason to believe Landes was a thug by any definition. Oh yeah, and police response time out there can be measured in tens of minutes.

I don't know Podany personally so I can't vouch for his overall character but the fact that he has a concealed weapons license means he's got to have kept himself out of any serious trouble for almost 6 decades. On top of that he was taking an active and responsible role in the safety of his community so more kids just trying to grow up don't get squashed by careless drivers. The fact that somebody would "take the high road" by calling a responsible civic minded adult an "idiot" illustrate exactly why our society is broken.

This was a good shoot.

 

[lacoochee]

I have to say I am a little appauled at the speed with which some folks on this forum will call another man an idiot for asking someone to slow down while driving through a residential area. You have no idea what the history of these jokers are or was in this one man's case, nor do you know what they threatened to do to the shooter. Maybe the shooter made out like is was the OK corral and just gunned the guy down, sounds unlikely though nor has anything like that been disclosed.

I live on dead end street and several times a day folks turn down my road (ignoring the dead end sign) get to the end of street turn around and come back down at 50 mph at least, I have never hesitated to ask them to slow down. There is not a house on my road that does not have young children in them are we supposed to wait until a child gets killed to ask someone to slow down. I can tell you that results would not be pretty if it was my child who was hit playing in the front yard.

I find the premise that merely asking someone to slow down on a residential street is provocation enough for an assault by the speeder and company on the requestor and that that request automatically makes the requestor magically responsible for all that follows to be laughable. So if I don't walk through life with my head down, refusing to look anyone in the eyes, I'm culpable for anything that happens 'cause I was asking for it?

 

[XDKingslayer]

I have to say I am a little appauled at the speed with which some folks on this forum will call another man an idiot for asking someone to slow down while driving through a residential area. You have no idea what the history of these jokers are or was in this one man's case, nor do you know what they threatened to do to the shooter. Maybe the shooter made out like is was the OK corral and just gunned the guy down, sounds unlikely though nor has anything like that been disclosed.

I live on dead end street and several times a day folks turn down my road (ignoring the dead end sign) get to the end of street turn around and come back down at 50 mph at least, I have never hesitated to ask them to slow down. There is not a house on my road that does not have young children in them are we supposed to wait until a child gets killed to ask someone to slow down. I can tell you that results would not be pretty if it was my child who was hit playing in the front yard.

I find the premise that merely asking someone to slow down on a residential street is provocation enough for an assault by the speeder and company on the requestor and that that request automatically makes the requestor magically responsible for all that follows to be laughable. So if I don't walk through life with my head down, refusing to look anyone in the eyes, I'm culpable for anything that happens 'cause I was asking for it?

When you have so many "sheepdogs" it seems they start to turn into sheep themselves.

It's blatantly apparent here. You're not supposed to clear your house anymore. You're not supposed to intervene in a robbery, you're supposed to sneak out the back and call the police. You're not supposed to use your weapon to defend another person.

No, were supposed to mind our own business regardless of who else gets killed doing so. We're supposed to keep our heads down and avoid eye contact with everyone so there aren't any situations. We're supposed to accept that. After all, it's the high road right? (notice how that sounds amazingly like "it's for the children" in that context)

The wussification of the nation is so heavy here it isn't funny. It's almost like your supposed to turn in your manhood when your issued your CCW permit.

 

[the naked prophet]

I read another article with more details.

The driver was speeding through a residential area where there were children playing, and had passed the shooter's house several times before stopping nearby. The shooter went over and confronted the driver about speeding and endangering children. The passenger got out and began beating the shooter. The shooter was on the ground, being beaten in the face and body, and actually fired from the ground upwards towards his attacker.

It seems to be that this is a good shoot, but questionable enough that the cops decided to let a grand jury decide. I'm betting that the grand jury will decide not to indict.

 

[Bill2e]

You do not confront speeders if you are a civilian, especially one with a CCW. You take the information and call the police. Podany started the fight by confronting two individuals. The fight escalated until deadly force was used. There was no need for the fight in the beginning. Manslaughter.

HKMP......

I'm sorry, but I totally disagree with your statement.

If some one reckleesly sppeds through my neighborhood I have every right to tell them to slow the heck down.


I am not saying I can go out and shoot them, but since when have we lost ouur rights to stand up for our selves and our community.

If he got the guys tag number and call the police what would happen? NOTHING.



Next Point.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
WELL SAID XD.

 

[lacoochee]

It seems to be that this is a good shoot, but questionable enough that the cops decided to let a grand jury decide. I'm betting that the grand jury will decide not to indict.

Agreed, if this was the circumstance then it was a good shoot. The police won't get to decide it will be the county prosecutor that decides, I'd be willing to bet he/she declines to seek a grand jury on this one.