Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
10/20/2017 1:01:18 AM
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 9/6/2005 7:56:17 AM EDT
I'd hate to see this guy do time over this although I think what he did was pretty stupid.


TAMPA - The nightmares started shortly after the robbery.
Lawrence Storer, 34, said he regularly dreams he's being attacked at gunpoint.

``You have sleepless nights, you know?'' Storer said from Sumos Thai Cafe, the Twiggs Avenue restaurant he owns. ``It's not easy.''

The worst dream, he said, doesn't involve guns and confrontations. In one recurring nightmare, Storer said, he goes to prison.

It's a bad dream that might come true.

On Oct. 30, 2003, Shantavious Wilson, 24, put a gun to Storer's head and demanded they go inside the restaurant. Wilson filled a bag with change and left. Storer locked the door, then called police.

His next move changed his life forever.

Police say Storer unlocked the door, ran to his Ford Explorer and gave chase. Three blocks later, Storer ran over and killed Wilson, police say. Prosecutors have filed manslaughter charges.

Storer said he is under tremendous pressure as he awaits trial. If convicted, he faces up to 15 years in prison. A lawsuit seeking civil damages could wipe him out financially, even if he is acquitted in the criminal case.

The pending trial, however, has transcended Storer's guilt or innocence.

Court documents filed by the 2nd District Court of Appeal in August have piqued the interest of prosecutors and defense attorneys alike.

Decisions made about Storer's defense strategy could affect future cases involving self- defense or vigilante justice in Florida.

The issue at hand: Can the defense team discuss a victim's criminal record in court?

Defense lawyers want to prove that Wilson was robbing Storer shortly before he died. They argue that Wilson's criminal record, specifically a conviction for armed robbery, will be key to their case.

On the other side of the argument, prosecutors say the previous crime is irrelevant. Unless Storer knew about Wilson's prior record, what difference would it make?

A three-judge panel will hear oral arguments Oct. 25.




Read the rest here.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 7:58:31 AM EDT
the defendant has money, therefore he is screwed.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 8:03:15 AM EDT
The bottom line is this:

What is a just outcome here? Is society structured to protect the armed robber who uses the threat of death to take what is not his, or is it supposed to be structured to protect the rest of us FROM such people?

Justice would demand that the person who killed the robber be penalized, but lightly, and would be immune from civil liability because he killed a scum sucking weasel who is a threat to others.

Unfortunately the law doesn't always serve justice.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 8:06:33 AM EDT
Every self defense case I've ever read about agrees with the common law that once you are
free from your attacker, and you give chase, you then become the aggressor.

Why is this any different? Why did he give chase? The law is not on his side in this
one I'm afraid. Stupid is as stupid does.

Link Posted: 9/6/2005 8:09:55 AM EDT

Three blocks later, Storer ran over and killed Wilson


I'm sure there's much more to the story than that.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 8:13:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TexasSIG:
Every self defense case I've ever read about agrees with the common law that once you are
free from your attacker, and you give chase, you then become the aggressor.

Why is this any different? Why did he give chase? The law is not on his side in this
one I'm afraid. Stupid is as stupid does.




You are talking about duty to retreat and there is none in Florida. If he followed the guy to ID him for the cops and then got embroiled in a self defense situation, he's within his rights (IN FLORIDA) to cap his ass.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 8:14:45 AM EDT
Fleeing felon?
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 8:18:01 AM EDT
CLEARLY, the armed assailant approached him with his gun drawn (2nd confrontation) and raised it to shoot. The plaintiff was only protecting himself. He was just trying to get a license plate number, for Gods Sake.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 8:30:05 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Sub-MOA:

Originally Posted By TexasSIG:
Every self defense case I've ever read about agrees with the common law that once you are
free from your attacker, and you give chase, you then become the aggressor.

Why is this any different? Why did he give chase? The law is not on his side in this
one I'm afraid. Stupid is as stupid does.




You are talking about duty to retreat and there is none in Florida. If he followed the guy to ID him for the cops and then got embroiled in a self defense situation, he's within his rights (IN FLORIDA) to cap his ass.



Nope. Duty to retreat is different. The right to self defense ends when you are no longer
in danger. At that point it may be covered in some statutes, but it's no longer self defense.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 8:31:30 AM EDT
Put me on the jury. He'll be walking free.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 8:33:29 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TexasSIG:

Originally Posted By Sub-MOA:

Originally Posted By TexasSIG:
Every self defense case I've ever read about agrees with the common law that once you are
free from your attacker, and you give chase, you then become the aggressor.

Why is this any different? Why did he give chase? The law is not on his side in this
one I'm afraid. Stupid is as stupid does.




You are talking about duty to retreat and there is none in Florida. If he followed the guy to ID him for the cops and then got embroiled in a self defense situation, he's within his rights (IN FLORIDA) to cap his ass.



Nope. Duty to retreat is different. The right to self defense ends when you are no longer
in danger. At that point it may be covered in some statutes, but it's no longer self defense.



Read that again

Link Posted: 9/6/2005 8:33:54 AM EDT
Shantavious...

Shantavious...

Shantavious?

WTF?
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 8:34:01 AM EDT
He was in the right.

CRC
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 8:35:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By operatorerror:
Shantavious...

Shantavious...

Shantavious?

WTF?



Racist.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 8:36:06 AM EDT
liberal counter-culture says:

Because armed robbery is bad...armed robbery is liberal-good.

Because defending your property is good....defense of property is liberal-bad.


Hell, possesing property at all is liberal-bad.
The liberal-saint john lennon said it..."imagine no possesions...i wonder if you can".
If a heroin addict said it, then it must be liberal-true.


A. Enough is enough, you have a right to defend and take back your property. That is just common sense. In other words it is smart.

B. IMAGINE just how dumb it is to think otherwise.

C. IMAGINE a liberal-free world, I really think you can.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 8:36:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/6/2005 8:39:50 AM EDT by TexasSIG]

Originally Posted By Sub-MOA:

Originally Posted By TexasSIG:

Originally Posted By Sub-MOA:

Originally Posted By TexasSIG:
Every self defense case I've ever read about agrees with the common law that once you are
free from your attacker, and you give chase, you then become the aggressor.

Why is this any different? Why did he give chase? The law is not on his side in this
one I'm afraid. Stupid is as stupid does.




You are talking about duty to retreat and there is none in Florida. If he followed the guy to ID him for the cops and then got embroiled in a self defense situation, he's within his rights (IN FLORIDA) to cap his ass.



Nope. Duty to retreat is different. The right to self defense ends when you are no longer
in danger. At that point it may be covered in some statutes, but it's no longer self defense.



Read that again




Find me any court case where that stuff has been used successfully in a defense.

Texas has similar statutes, but it won't keep you out of prison. NO ONE has successfully
used that as a defense as far as I can find.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 8:38:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/6/2005 8:41:11 AM EDT by TexasSIG]

Originally Posted By MikeSSS:
liberal counter-culture says:

Because armed robbery is bad...armed robbery is liberal-good.

Because defending your property is good....defense of property is liberal-bad.


Hell, possesing property at all is liberal-bad.
The liberal-saint john lennon said it..."imagine no possesions...i wonder if you can".
If a heroin addict said it, then it must be liberal-true.


A. Enough is enough, you have a right to defend and take back your property. That is just common sense. In other words it is smart.

B. IMAGINE just how dumb it is to think otherwise.

C. IMAGINE a liberal-free world, I really think you can.




That may be true, but the LAW says otherwise. In Texas there's a very specific instance
covered in statute regarding giving chase. It has NOT been successfully used in a defense
though as far as I can find.

The reason this is a landmark legal case has nothing to do with self defense or anything like that.
This case is important overall because being allowed to introduce prior crimes
is a HUGE thing.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 8:43:26 AM EDT
If he actually chased the guy down and
killed him over the robbery, then he is
in the wrong.

You cannot shoot a guy in the back for
stealing your VCR if he is halfway down
the street (in most states).
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 8:45:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By modog:

Originally Posted By operatorerror:
Shantavious...

Shantavious...

Shantavious?

WTF?



Racist.



LOL! Okay...

In this case I prefer to think of myself as more of a linguist.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 8:47:21 AM EDT
He waited to long to pull the trigger.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 8:48:13 AM EDT

Originally Posted By MikeSSS:
liberal counter-culture says:

Because armed robbery is bad...armed robbery is liberal-good.

Because defending your property is good....defense of property is liberal-bad.


Hell, possesing property at all is liberal-bad.
The liberal-saint john lennon said it..."imagine no possesions...i wonder if you can".
If a heroin addict said it, then it must be liberal-true.


A. Enough is enough, you have a right to defend and take back your property. That is just common sense. In other words it is smart.

B. IMAGINE just how dumb it is to think otherwise.

C. IMAGINE a liberal-free world, I really think you can.



Imagine a world populated entirely by liberals. A world with no violence, no guns, no dangerous objects.

I think we would conquer them fairly easily, they'd never suspect it.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 10:00:30 AM EDT
what does it matter? a piece of shit detrimental to society is dead, let the hero go back to work and try stopping real criems instead of persecuting those who do good


And no I don't care that he ran the thief down, the thief would have got crap for a sentence had he been arrested anyways, the owner did good
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 10:04:56 AM EDT
They're going burn that guy but good.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 10:06:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/6/2005 10:07:43 AM EDT by Max_Mike]

Originally Posted By TexasSIG:
Every self defense case I've ever read about agrees with the common law that once you are
free from your attacker, and you give chase, you then become the aggressor.

Why is this any different? Why did he give chase? The law is not on his side in this
one I'm afraid. Stupid is as stupid does.




That is a modern concept there is plenty of historical precedent that supports the opposite view.

Personally I have no problem with what he did… if someone sticks a gun to my head, threatens to kill me, and robs me I want them dead.

From a modern legal perspective I would not acted in the manner he did, but morally the guy did nothing wrong.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 10:08:28 AM EDT
He was entitled to try to recover his property.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 10:10:09 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Max_Mike:

Originally Posted By TexasSIG:
Every self defense case I've ever read about agrees with the common law that once you are
free from your attacker, and you give chase, you then become the aggressor.

Why is this any different? Why did he give chase? The law is not on his side in this
one I'm afraid. Stupid is as stupid does.




That is a modern concept there is plenty of historical precedent that supports the opposite view.

Personally I have no problem with what he did… if someone sticks a gun to my head, threatens to kill me, and robs me I want them dead.

From a modern legal perspective I would not acted in the manner he did, but morally the guy did nothing wrong.




Yeah, I'd agree with that. I'd love to be able to do the same. But this guy HAD to expect he
was in deep shit legally for doing what he was doing.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 10:10:43 AM EDT
I'd be the one hold out on the jury.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 10:13:02 AM EDT
Whats wrong with killing thieves,no matter where they are if they just robbed go kill them.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 10:19:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By HarrySacz:
Whats wrong with killing thieves,no matter where they are if they just robbed go kill them.




Well, maybe the fact that it's against the law? I agree with you 100%, but we have
a system. If you don't like the system, then work to change it, but you cannot
just make up your own system because you don't like the one that's in place.



Link Posted: 9/6/2005 10:36:49 AM EDT

Originally Posted By operatorerror:

Originally Posted By modog:

Originally Posted By operatorerror:
Shantavious...

Shantavious...

Shantavious?

WTF?



Racist.



LOL! Okay...

In this case I prefer to think of myself as more of a linguist.



I think the reporters misspelled his name...it's supposed to be "Hantavirus".
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 10:38:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/6/2005 10:39:21 AM EDT by mousehunter]
In Texas

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable property:

1)if he would be justified in using force...
2)when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the night time from escaping with property; and
3) he reasonably believes that:
a) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
b) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury BINGO

recovering property from someone who just held a gun to your head - pretty comfortable b) will apply
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 10:39:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/6/2005 10:43:49 AM EDT by TexasSIG]

Originally Posted By mousehunter:
In Texas

A person is justified in using deadly force against another to protect land or tangible, movable propert:

1)if he would be justified in using force...
2)when adn to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly force is immediately necessary:
B) to prevent the other who is fleeing immediately after committing burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or theft during the night time from escaping with property; and
3) he reasonably believes that:
a) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means; or
b) the use of force other than deadly force to protect or recover the land or property would expose the actor or another to a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury BINGO

recovering property from someone who just held a gun to your head - pretty comfortable b) will apply



And again, this has NEVER been successfully used as a defense, on it's own standing, as far as
I can find. So it SOUNDS good, but if you are hoping for that one statute to keep you
out of prison, you're screwed.

The prosecutors and juries always hang you with :


3) he reasonably believes that:
a) the land or property cannot be protected or recovered by any other means



The prosecutor will parade cops and others across the witness stand and convince
the jury that it wasn't necessary.

That is the reality of this, regardless of the statutes.

The only case where this has been applied successfuly as far as I can find, it
was used with several other defenses. The particular case I read about involved
a stolen car and the fact that the victim KNEW that the car was about to be
used in a drive by, so his stopping the car theft saved someone else from a drive by.

That's the only time that statute has worked.
Link Posted: 9/6/2005 10:39:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
He was entitled to try to recover his property.



From a "what's just" position I agree, but from a realistic position it's not going to fly. Most states won't allow deadly force to recover property unless the person taking it places you in mortal fear of your life again. It's hard to see how that would be the case when the guy was run over.

I honestly don't see what the arguement is really over here? The dead man WAS commiting armed robbery does the fact he commited one earlier make any difference?

There needs to be a nationwide lock down on the ability of a criminal's family suing for any injury sustained as the fallout of a felony act of violence. That is the part that most infuriates me. It is leagal theft a second time from those that were already victimized by a dead or injured criminal.
Top Top