Odd SYG case, involving blind guy.

[blankslate]

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com...0_1_assault-rifle-john-wayne-rogers-launchers

He had been charged with first-degree murder but just before a jury began deliberations at his trial last month, Circuit Judge John Galluzzo granted his "stand your ground" motion, ending the trial and setting Rogers free.

Galluzzo ruled that Rogers had acted in self-defense on March 27, 2012, when he shot James DeWitt, 34, a friend who was spending the night.

Rogers told jurors that DeWitt had begun punching him then came charging at him, threatening to kill him.

Rogers shot him once with a .308-caliber assault rifle.

Today, Rogers, in sunglasses and carrying a white cane, returned to court and his attorney, Assistant Public Defender Tim Caudill, asked Galluzzo to return the guns.

Galluzzo did so grudgingly, saying that legally, he had no choice.

"If I did, I wouldn't return them," he said.

Rogers will get back his rifle and a 10-millimeter Glock pistol, but the judge ordered the Seminole County Sheriff's Office to destroy the ammunition that had been seized along with them.

The bullets were 40 years old, according to packaging materials, Galluzzo said, and were unsafe.

Now, the shooting took place in his own residence and he was attacked so it was clearly a case of self-defense and in so far as the story is accurate very justifiable.
The blind part is unusual.
I wonder if in Florida would give him a CCW permit.






......

 

[BrunoPuntzJones]

What does the age of the ammo have to do with anything and why was it destroyed?

 

[Genx87]

In the realm of petty and bitter the judge orders his ammunition destroyed under the guise of "safety".

 

[kia75]

Now, the shooting took place in his own residence and he was attacked so it was clearly a case of self-defense and in so far as the story is accurate very justifiable.
......

This is the problem right here. I bet you if we had the dead guy up on the stand he'd tell a very different story, but since the only other witness is dead we can only go by the shooter's word.

The entire story sounds rather bizarre and makes no sense. A random friend, trustworthy enough that the shooter let him sleep at his house randomly decides to attack his friend? My main problem with Stand Your Ground laws is that it makes it in your best interest to get rid of the other witness if there is a fight. After all, dead man tell no tales.

 

[Genx87]

I'm sure if it is pretty easy to determine if an attack occurred.

 

[brycejones]

I'm sure if it is pretty easy to determine if an attack occurred.

You can confirm a confrontation occurred. Confirming the events leading up to the confrontation and who attacked who or who was defending themselves from who is a completely different deal.

Not saying this guy is lying just when there are only 2 witnesses and 1 is dead its possible the one survivor isn't telling the whole and complete truth.

 

[thraashman]

Why does all the weird shit happen in Florida?

 

[brycejones]

Why does all the weird shit happen in Florida?

Florida -

The crazy Texas?

 

[thraashman]

Florida -

The crazy Texas?

I thought Texas was already the crazy Texas.

 

[brycejones]

I thought Texas was already the crazy Texas.

Ok Florida is the crazier Texas....

 

[Genx87]

You can confirm a confrontation occurred. Confirming the events leading up to the confrontation and who attacked who or who was defending themselves from who is a completely different deal.

Not saying this guy is lying just when there are only 2 witnesses and 1 is dead its possible the one survivor isn't telling the whole and complete truth.

I guess the key is to not get into fist fights with anybody. But more to the point with SYG. Considering two high profile cases in this state did not use this law in their defense. I suspect its use is very confined to specific situations and the burden of proof quite high.

 

[brycejones]

I guess the key is to not get into fist fights with anybody. But more to the point with SYG. Considering two high profile cases in this state did not use this law in their defense. I suspect its use is very confined to specific situations and the burden of proof quite high.

I assume you are referring to Zimmerman and that other guy who shot at the kids over music.

I never did understand why Zimmerman didn't try for a SYG hearing, it would have saved him a ton in legal fees. The other case was significantly more complex as the jury verdict clearly indicates.

slightly off topic:

How does a blind guy learn to shoot?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

I assume you are referring to Zimmerman and that other guy who shot at the kids over music.

I never did understand why Zimmerman didn't try for a SYG hearing, it would have saved him a ton in legal fees. The other case was significantly more complex as the jury verdict clearly indicates.

slightly off topic:

How does a blind guy learn to shoot?

Apparently you didn't read the article in the OP.

An industrial accident left Roger legally blind in 2001 but he has some limited vision.

 

[kia75]

I'm sure if it is pretty easy to determine if an attack occurred.

According to another guest both men were engaged in "play-fighting" earlier in the night and were bruised and battered because of it. Apparently this was a common occurrence between the two friends. That guest left before the shooting occurred. Both men were also drinking heavily that night and in fact had left together to do a beer run right before the alcohol store closed.

It's hard to tell if the "fist fight" that occurred in the house occurred during the shooting or several hours before. It's hard to tell if the incident was "play-fighting" that occurred earlier or malicious. It's hard to tell if in a drunker stupor one-man continued the "play-fighting" to a point of death or if one drunk man over-reacted to a bit of play-fighting from another drunk man.

IMO, the whole story sounds utterly strange. I've never play-fought with any of my friends to the point of bruises and black eyes. I've never invited a friend to stay the night that I didn't trust to not try and beat me up.

 

[dainthomas]

You can confirm a confrontation occurred. Confirming the events leading up to the confrontation and who attacked who or who was defending themselves from who is a completely different deal.

Not saying this guy is lying just when there are only 2 witnesses and 1 is dead its possible the one survivor isn't telling the whole and complete truth.

Him and that fat guy who was lost at sea for two years should hang out.

Seriously though, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't just start punching a blind guy with an assault rifle.

 

[Fern]

This is the problem right here. I bet you if we had the dead guy up on the stand he'd tell a very different story, but since the only other witness is dead we can only go by the shooter's word.

The entire story sounds rather bizarre and makes no sense. A random friend, trustworthy enough that the shooter let him sleep at his house randomly decides to attack his friend? My main problem with Stand Your Ground laws is that it makes it in your best interest to get rid of the other witness if there is a fight. After all, dead man tell no tales.

Your complaint is not specific to SYG, but includes the whole category of self defense.

Fern

 

[kia75]

Your complaint is not specific to SYG, but includes the whole category of self defense.

Fern

Yes, laws that encourage you to get rid of the other witness are bad and since SYG is such a law then it is a bad law.

No, not all self defense laws encourage the killing of 2nd person, or automatically make the winner of a lethal fight legally right. Just because you survive and a 2nd person is dead doesn't mean the survivor was morally correct and the loser morally wrong in the confrontation.

 

[Fern]

Yes, laws that encourage you to get rid of the other witness are bad and since SYG is such a law then it is a bad law.

No, not all self defense laws encourage the killing of 2nd person, or automatically make the winner of a lethal fight legally right. Just because you survive and a 2nd person is dead doesn't mean the survivor was morally correct and the loser morally wrong in the confrontation.

This is another case not based on SYG, or even the Castle Doctrine law.

Laws against robbery, rape and murder strongly favor 'getting rid of witnesses'.

Nobody is going to claim that a blind man has a reasonable opportunity to retreat from danger.

My point, the story here, based on what few facts we have, would be the same without SYG or even castle Doctrine. I.e., the ole plain self defense laws.

Fern

 

[Nebor]

I find it interesting that this blind guy prefers high caliber weaponry. No 5.56 AR-15 for him, he has a 7.62 battle rifle. And a 10mm Glock.

 

[kia75]

I'm trying to parse this post, I really am, but this post makes absolutely no sense. Help me understand exactly what you mean.

This is another case not based on SYG, or even the Castle Doctrine law.

The opening post states that the trial for this guy CAN'T GO THROUGH because of the Stand Your Ground Law. The judge personally thinks the guy is guilty as sin but can't do anything because of the Stand Your Ground Law. He reluctantly grants the "Stand Your Ground" motion. It's in the opening quote, it's in the linked article, this is the very definition of "Stand Your Ground"

Laws against robbery, rape and murder strongly favor 'getting rid of witnesses'.

No they don't. If a criminal robs somebody then kills the witness he now has to face Murder charges as well as robbery charges. Same with Rape. A murderer who murders the witnesses of his murder now faces even more murder charges. It's only Stand Your Ground and similar laws where you get in a fight, if you eliminate the witness then your version of events become the official ones. After all, dead man tell no tales. If I start a fight with you, you wind up dead then I just claim self defense and there's nobody to say otherwise!

Nobody is going to claim that a blind man has a reasonable opportunity to retreat from danger.

My point, the story here, based on what few facts we have, would be the same without SYG or even castle Doctrine. I.e., the ole plain self defense laws.

Fern

Again, have you read the article? Under the "ole plain self defense laws" the guy would be going to a jury trial but because of the "Stand Your Ground" law of Florida the guy has to go free!

Castle Doctrine is different per each state, but it also generally only applies to people that aren't legally in your home, i.e. not people that you personally invited to spend the night. Under Castle doctrine he'd be expected to not to kill people he invites to sleep over.

The law also states that Rogers can't initiate a fight in his own home then kill the person he fought. Considering that the facts show that the two men were play-fighting the entire night, with bruises and black-eyes to show for it and they physically fought so much that we can't determine exactly who started the physical altercation, or even if a physical altercation happened when Rogers stated it did! Think about that for a minute, due to the amount of physical scrapping the two had been doing, we can't even confirm or deny the physical altercation that Rogers claims happened and even if we could confirm a physical altercation know why this specific one was deadly when any of the other altercations from the previous night or day were perfectly fine.

What puts the Stand your Ground law in even more ill repute is that Rogers did this exact same thing 4 years ago! 4 years ago (2 years before the most recent shooting) after a night of drinking and fighting Rogers shot 15 rounds at his room-mate. What's the main difference between 4 years ago and now? His room-mate lived (and wasn't shot) while DeWitt died. Because his room-mate wasn't hit by any of the 15 rounds fired at him the room-mate was able to give his side of the story and the court declared Rogers in the wrong for that incident. With Stand your ground and eerily similar circumstances two years later but nobody living to counter Rogers version of events, Roger gets off scott-free!

Here's a link from the Orlando Sentienl but any google search returns plenty of news items with the basic facts and there's a news link in the opening paragraph confirming what's in this post.