mamabearCali wrote:Thank heavens for Florida's stand and defend law. The prosecutor first wanted to try this as a death penalty case--HOLY COW! Two drunk/high thugs try to get on a sailboat to kill/throw the owner off into the water. Owner of said sailboat fires at the two criminals and ends their attack. The judge threw it out and chewed the prosecutor a new one.
That sheds a great deal more light on the situation. It also places much more credibility on the the CHL'ers defense and his legal use of lethal force against an intruder into his home.
SAHM to four precious children. Wife to a loving husband.
"The women of this country learned long ago those without swords can still die upon them!" Eowyn in LOTR Two Towers
VMI77 wrote:
If it happened that way. I'm not sure what "evidence" you're referring too, since the article didn't really present any. We've heard the shooter's story and an autopsy report of drug and alcohol consumption, and other than the two dead bodies, that's about it. His story might be true and it might not.
Except You are forgetting the testimony of the two dead people's friends. They said that those two were going out to the boat to either A. evict him (throw him in the water) or B. kill him. That would be serious evidence. That would be those two planning to commit a crime and felonies to boot! We also know that the man has a CHL, thus he does not have an extensive criminal record, and though you may think that $1,000 is a steal of a deal that does not mean anything. I know of people who buy things at rock bottom even steal of a deal prices because they pay attention so without further evidence (such as a contract with the two defendant to pay more than $1,000 etc). It is not a crime to buy a boat far far far below market price. It is however a crime to go out to a boat and intend throw someone off in the water or kill him. We have no evidence of the CHL'er planning to commit a crime--everything you have said has no evidence basis. We do have evidence of the two drunk/high people planning to commit a crime up to and including murder.
IF* the CHL-er did steal the boat by not paying the full price he agreed to (and there is no evidence for that at all) then there are legal means to deal with it. It is a crime to simply go and throw the person off the boat in the middle of the water. Had they lived through the attempt at doing that they would have been brought up on charges for that.
After reading the actual ruling I am inclined to believe the article is agenda driven and was written to obfuscate the facts and make the ruling look questionable --and to make the "stand and defend" law seem unreasonable. And though the price paid for the boat still makes no sense to me, it also looks like these guys at least intended to strong arm the buyer off the boat so that Vittum could have it. I agree with the judge's ruling that the defendant acted within the law. I also think the case should never have been prosecuted and sense a prosecutor serving a political agenda. The defendant is lucky he got a judge who knows and follows the law instead of serving a political agenda like the prosecutor. One of the scariest aspects of our legal system is that a lot of the judges out there aren't like Judge Oftedal --but more like this prosecutor who apparently doesn't care what the law says (and there are a lot of prosecutors like this one, especially in the more liberal states).
"Journalism, n. A job for people who flunked out of STEM courses, enjoy making up stories, and have no detectable integrity or morals."
That was a really STUPID acting prosecutor who should be called before the disciplinary committee of the bar for
"Malicious Prosecution" and quite probably should do some time in jail and be stripped of their law license.
IMO. I really dislike people who try to put someone in jail who shouldn't be there.
I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, and I won't be laid a hand on.
I don't do those things to other people and I require the same of them.
Don’t pick a fight with an old man. If he is too old to fight, he’ll just kill you.
OldCurlyWolf wrote:That was a really STUPID acting prosecutor who should be called before the disciplinary committee of the bar for
"Malicious Prosecution" and quite probably should do some time in jail and be stripped of their law license.
IMO. I really dislike people who try to put someone in jail who shouldn't be there.
Some one had an agenda and that prosecuter should be ordered back to law school while he is in jail!
The surreptitious entry on the Defendant's boat by Vittum and Mohlman and their subsequent actions in refusing to leave when directed by the Defendant, coupled with their threats and attempts to forcibly evict him and remove him from his home against his will without legal authority or color of law constitute not just burglary, but a burglary with assault or battery, an identified forcible felony.
Some one had an agenda and that prosecuter should be ordered back to law school while he is in jail!