Sean Taylor murders confess

[Pete]

...on the one hand, certainly, a person who comes forward is at least taking a step towards responsibility. Yeah, I get that. But how much of a step?

On the other hand, they chose to break and enter. They chose to bring a firearm.

I take issue with any kind of mitigation because an individual decides to, all of a sudden, start thinking about consequences and what they did and now wants to argue it is somehow not as bad because, gee whiz, you know, I mean, I didn't actually intend or plan on using the gun. Gosh, I am sorry!

The only protection the law abiding have in terms of protecting lawful possession and lawful use of firearms is the vigorous opposition to unlawful possession and use.

It is amazing how people all of a sudden worry about consequences AFTER they have done wrong and are facing them.

Unfortunately in this case Taylor's fear of "unlawful possession" is what probably killed him. As I see it, guns have been vilified to the point that if you look at someone wrong they take away your right to own one.

Take Taylor for example, not knowing the exact details I suspect it went like this. Someone steals his ATV's. He has an idea who did it so he goes and confronts them. To be sure he doesn't walk into a situation where he is facing 4 gun wielding thugs he sticks a pistol in his pocket, not what I would do but :shrug:. Sometime during the episode it get contentious, he feels threatened and shows them he is armed, a sort of "Detente" if you will. He doesn't shoot anyone or shoot at anyone. They back down and the gun in that situation at that moment did what it is supposed to do, it deterred escalation.

So now Taylor was "waving a gun around" and is in trouble. In typical fashion the DA piles on charges to intimidate. Taylor now pleads them down and as a condition of his "misdemeanor" convictions his right to own a gun is stripped. He is now defenseless and gets gunned down in his own home.


Now this situation is sadly extreme because it is famous and wealthy football player Sean Taylor but look at how it works in everyday Americans. Bob and Debbie get in an argument in their home. Things get heated and Debbie smacks Bob across the face because he is being an ass and he called her a name. The neighbors hearing the yelling and call Johnny law who shows up. During the questioning they notice a red hand print on Bob's face. Because of domestic violence laws now Debbie is immediately arrested. Bob knows he might have deserved it, and he does not want her carted off to jail but the police HAVE TO. So now Debbie ends up in court and is convicted of "misdemeanor domestic violence" and as a result she gets a $200 fine AND she cannot own or possess a handgun. Now Bob takes the dusty .32 snub nose out of the closet where it has been untouched for over a year and gets rid of it to keep Debbie from getting pinched for possessing a handgun should anything ever happen again. 5 months later they are both shot by a burglar.

 

[ImnoMensa]

I am sure the kids were out on their first burglary.

I am sure they are good to their Grandmother.

I am sure they wouldnt dream of using a controlled dangerous Substance.

I am sure if they are put on probation they will never do it again.

I am sure they are sorry---sorry they got caught.

 

[Novus Collectus]

I am sure the kids were out on their first burglary.

I am sure they are good to their Grandmother.

I am sure they wouldnt dream of using a controlled dangerous Substance.

I am sure if they are put on probation they will never do it again.

I am sure they are sorry---sorry they got caught.

....and they were also on their way to church.

 

[Larry Gude]

I thought...

I'm not looking to get these guys off the hook. They screwed up big time.

You know I am the guy who says never pull a gun unless you intend on using it and never point a gun at anything you don't intend to shoot.

They brought the gun and someone pulled the trigger. They are responsible for those actions.

I think I will withdraw from this thread since somehow I stepped into a position I really did not intend.

...you raised a valid point, the admission, confession of guilt. I'm just trying to come back over the top of that argument to reiterate that if, the people, intend for violence to be a focus, a thing we truly loathe, then we have to treat it so.

Certainly you've noticed how a gun in your hands or mine is this demon possessed with not only a will of it's own but intent and desire to slaughter the innocent. Yet, when it is the hands of some kid who 'was just trying rob someone' all of a sudden, the evil spirits are gone, it's 'just a gun'. I just want an emphasis to exist that THEY are the ones who did evil with a gone, not the law abiding.

 

[Larry Gude]

That's normal...

It is amazing how people all of a sudden worry about consequences AFTER they have done wrong and are facing them.

...right? Thing is, we can forgive some things, be understanding about some things. I just don't want shooting someone to be one of those things.

 

[2ndAmendment]

...right? Thing is, we can forgive some things, be understanding about some things. I just don't want shooting someone to be one of those things.

Well, there are circumstances. Self-defense, defense of others, defense of property ... not in the communist state of Maryland but in states where the Second Amendment is recognized by the legislative elite.

 

[smilin]

Well, there are circumstances. Self-defense, defense of others, defense of property ... not in the communist state of Maryland but in states where the Second Amendment is recognized by the legislative elite.

After working and living in D(odge) C(ity) for a long time I can assure you the bad guys have the guns and the people obeying the law don't have a chance.
Here we have the classic reformed prominent citizen who has been told to obey the law and does.
So he is forced to bring a knife to a gun fight.
Rights for four punks who broke into a house fully armed and ready to pull the trigger? The same as for Taylor who died protecting his right to the pursuit of happiness - and his family.

 

[Pete]

...right? Thing is, we can forgive some things, be understanding about some things. I just don't want shooting someone to be one of those things.

I think it is typical but not normal. "Normal" people don't break laws because they know and fear the consequences. I would think that someone who disregards the consequences before and during the crime only to feel regret after are "abnormal". I would even think that any regret they feel is getting caught and not for the crime itself.

Take you for example, lets say you heard someone in your garage and you had your gun in your hand. You found them going through drawers or something and they didn't see you and you had a clear shot. I sincerely doubt you would shoot them immediately. You would first shout a warning telling them to stop, freeze or whatever. You wouldn't snipe them because you are "normal" and you being "normal" would use deadly force only as a last resort based on the values of human life you have.

I am basically saying that criminals, especially violent ones, by nature are "abnormal". Of course there are some who feel forced to steal food for survival. I am not talking about then per say but the ones who steal and worse for gain.

 

[smcop]

Statements like this urk me. They are trying to stake in early that it wasn't pre-meditated, well, screw that, they went there with a gun with the intention of using it if needed.

Edit: I see Radio Patrol thought the same thing.

The statement urks me too...but I don't know all of the investigation. However, no pre-meditation, it only need be momentarily pre-thought for first degree.

 

[Pandora]

....and they were also on their way to church.

But they didn't mean to kill anyone,

I'm willing to bet that some, maybe even all, were already on probation. Most criminals don't start off going after the big job. They do small escalating jobs to get them to that point, never comprehending the repercussions of their actions along the way, or frankly don't care. Simply put, a criminal mind is not going to flip burgers at Mc Donalds making $7 an hour when stealing and drug running is much more profitable. Getting caught only slows them down for a minute but as soon as they can get their ass back in the game, they will jump at the chance.

2A did address a very valid point posing the question "did they turn themselves in?" And by all accounts, from what I have heard and read, citizen's tips lead to the arrests made, so I would say no they didn't. They are not that sorry, just sorry they got caught.

Another good point 2A made was this, they had a gun, they pointed it, and I was also taught that you never point a gun at someone unless you had intentions of using that gun. A leg wound? Well, that could hurt the argument for pre-meditated murder or could only further validate what Catt said yesterday, they panicked. I am amazed at the different view points on pre-meditation here, didn't expect that at all. I expected everyone to agree with me. (ok kidding just a little bit)

Just so we are on the same page here... basic definition Premeditated murder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I felt when they put that whole statement out there that way, they were bracing us for a lesser charge later.

The whole thing sucks. Even if Sean had a gun, he would have had to have it in his hand, IMO, to have had any of a chance. To be woken up out of bed during a burglary attempt is a pretty vulnerable position to be in.

I searched around and was somewhat concerned that he didn't take some better precautionary measures at the prior B&E. Sean had the money, no doubt about that, so why not all the bells and whistles in a security system, dog, whatever?

^ I am in no way blaming Sean, just so that is clear. Just tossing out the question.

 

[Lilypad]

Plot thickens

The 4 suspects all have prior arrests, according to Lee County Sheriff's Office records. Charles Kendrick Lee Wardlow, 18, was arrested twice for selling marijuana and once for grand theft of a vehicle. Eric Rivera Jr, 17, has been arrested in October for trafficking cocaine and methamphetamine, and he previously was behind bars for altering the identification number on a firearm. Venjah K. Hunte, 20, was arrested previously this year on drug and trespassing charges. And Jason Scott Mitchell, 19, has been arrested twice, most recently in October on charges of driving with a suspended licence and violation of probation.

The Miami Herald reported that Mitchell and Wardlow had connections to Taylor. Mitchell cut Taylor's lawn and did other chores at the house. Taylor's sister, Sasha Johnson, dates Wardlow's older cousin Christopher, and Scottie Mitchell told the paper the couple invited Jason Mitchell to Johnson's birthday party within the past two months. A woman who identified herself as Jason Mitchell's mother told the Naples Daily News her son was at a birthday party at Sean Taylor's home a couple months ago. She also said her son was at home all week and last weekend.

 

[Novus Collectus]

Well, there are circumstances. Self-defense, defense of others, defense of property ... not in the communist state of Maryland but in states where the Second Amendment is recognized by the legislative elite.

Maryland is a castle doctrine state. You are allowed to use deadly force to protect your dwelling from an attack and you have no duty to retreat in your own home.

 

[Novus Collectus]

The statement urks me too...but I don't know all of the investigation. However, no pre-meditation, it only need be momentarily pre-thought for first degree.

That depends on interpretation and which state you are in as I understand it.

 

[smcop]

That depends on interpretation and which state you are in as I understand it.

Apparently not in Floridia. I just heard they were charged with a lesser murder.

 

[Novus Collectus]

Apparently not in Floridia. I just heard they were charged with a lesser murder.

Actually I think Florida is one of those states, but they have to prove intent to kill before he pulled the trigger:

Killing with premeditation” is killing after consciously deciding to do so. Thedecision must be present in the mind at the time of the killing. The law does not fix theexact period of time that must pass between the formation of the premeditated intent tokill and the killing. The period of time must be long enough to allow reflection by thedefendant. The premeditated intent to kill must be formed before the killing. The question of premeditation is a question of fact to be determined by you fromthe evidence. It will be sufficient proof of premeditation if the circumstances of thekilling and the conduct of the accused convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of theexistence of premeditation at the time of the killing.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. Case No. 8:03-CR-77-T-30TBM

It looks as if without premeditation the murder is second degree with life max.
Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : flsenate.gov

 

[Larry Gude]

That's not...

Maryland is a castle doctrine state. You are allowed to use deadly force to protect your dwelling from an attack and you have no duty to retreat in your own home.

...true as of the last time I bought a pistol; 2 years ago or so. The video from our wonderful AG Joe Curran states that if you can retreat you should. Only if you feel that you or a family member are in imminent danger may you act like it's your home and not the criminals.

 

[vraiblonde]

Maryland is a castle doctrine state. You are allowed to use deadly force to protect your dwelling from an attack and you have no duty to retreat in your own home.

Sorry, Charlie. Maryland IS NOT a castle doctrine state - the bill died in committee. There is also no duty to retreat on the books, so it's kind of in limbo right now. BUT just try to defend your home and family with a firearm and see the legal issues you will encounter, not the least of which is the criminal or his family suing you in civil court (and winning).

 

[Novus Collectus]

...true as of the last time I bought a pistol; 2 years ago or so. The video from our wonderful AG Joe Curran states that if you can retreat you should. Only if you feel that you or a family member are in imminent danger may you act like it's your home and not the criminals.

And he was wrong. You have no duty to retreat in your dwelling and you may stand your ground even using deadly force if necessary.

 

[vraiblonde]

And he was wrong. You have no duty to retreat in your dwelling and you may stand your ground even using deadly force if necessary.

Are you now trying to say you know more about MD law than our Attorney General???

 

[Novus Collectus]

Sorry, Charlie. Maryland IS NOT a castle doctrine state - the bill died in committee. There is also no duty to retreat on the books, so it's kind of in limbo right now. BUT just try to defend your home and family with a firearm and see the legal issues you will encounter, not the least of which is the criminal or his family suing you in civil court (and winning).

Oh jeez, I am getting sick and tired of this.
The bill WAS NOT about a castle doctrine, it was about stand your ground when outside of your home (IOW not in your dwelling) and it was about eliminating civil liability if one did defend themselves in their own home under existing castle doctrine law. You might be sued, but you will not be prosecuted.
The reason this ruffles my feathers whenever someone brings up that damn bill claiming MD has no castle doctrine understanding of law is because if they read the damn fricken bill summary they would have known MD is a castle doctrine state. The damn bill says right in it that a castle doctrine understanding of law in MD ALREADY exists!

Since 1963 you have no duty to retreat in your own home and you are allowed to use deadly force to defend an attack upon your dwelling. This has been upheld in more than a few cases and some quiet recently. This is MD law.

One of the elements of the defense of self-defense is "the duty of the defendant to retreat or avoid danger if such means were within his power and consistent with his safety." Bruce v. State,218 Md. 87, 97, 145 A.2d 428, 433 (1958); see also DeVaughn v.State, 232 Md. 447, 194 A.2d 109 (1963), cert. denied, 376 U.S.927, 84 S. Ct. 693, 11 L. Ed. 2d 623 (1964); Corbin, supra, 94 Md.App. 21, 614 A.2d 1329. There is an exception to that requirement,which we enunciated in Crawford v. State, 231 Md. 354, 361, 190A.2d 538, 541 (1963), that "a man faced with the danger of an attack upon his dwelling need not retreat from his home to escape the danger, but instead may stand his ground and, if necessary to repel the attack, may kill the attacker." See also Gainer v.State, 40 Md. App. 382, 391 A.2d 856, cert. denied, 284 Md. 743(1978); Barton v. State, 46 Md. App. 616, 420 A.2d 1009 (1980).

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND No. 38 September Term, 1996 __________________________________ HEATH WILLIAM BURCH <b style="color:black;background-color:#a0ffff">v</b>.

This one is DIRECTLY from the bill you are talking about:

SB 518, 2007
Other states, like Maryland, have adopted an exception to the duty to retreat known as the
“castle doctrine.” Under the castle doctrine, “a man faced with the danger of an attack
upon his dwelling need not retreat from his home to escape the danger, but instead may
stand his ground and, if necessary to repel the attack, may kill the attacker.” See Burch v.
State, 346 Md. 253, 283-4, 696 A.2d 443, 458 (1997) quoting Crawford v. State, 231 Md.
354, 361, 190 A.2d 538, 541 (1963). Courts are split as to whether a duty to retreat exists
under the castle doctrine in situations involving cohabitants, guests, and invitees.

http://mlis.state.md.us/2007RS/fnotes/bil_0008/sb0518.pdf