Florida Castle Doctrine case...

[stevie_d_64]

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/ ... _0626.html

Interesting read...

[T3hK1w1]

Let's see, he wins the the case, but loses his dogs, his house, and 8 months of his life...that's tragic.

[NguyenVanDon]

Sometimes, your life is worth more than just your personal belongings.

[Paladin]

AWESOME

This case is what stand-your-ground was created for.

I know Borden's life will never be the same, but it's a huge victory for the GG's.

Borden was admittedly assaulted by 3 known gang members with a car/baseball bat, but what the gang members didn't know is that Borden had a 9mm and was extremely proficient with it. He killed 2 (including the head of the gang), and wounded the third with extreme accuracy. These BG's supposedly had rap sheets as thick as a Charles Dickens novel.

Afterwards the gang burnt Borden's place down, and made death threats against him. The prosecutor (either an extreme leftist or corrupt) decided to prosecute Borden instead of the surviving gang member.

Huge Victory!

[NcongruNt]

Let's see, he wins the the case, but loses his dogs, his house, and 8 months of his life...that's tragic.

While I agree, freedom does have its price. Arson certainly is a crime against this man, and justice should be pursued against that crime. I certainly do not know why his dogs were euthanized, and it's a shame if it were done for no just cause.

I have a small beef with the notion in this country that freedom equals comfort. It certainly meant no such thing to the founding fathers. It meant the ability to live life on their own terms, and to be able to face the adversities that life throws at us without being oppressed by others in that pursuit. I quote Thomas Jefferson in the United States Declaration Of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

The founding fathers never said we were entitled to be happy. They simply stated that we have a right to pursue that end. As was with the founders of this country, the exercise of our rights may result in discomfort, danger, and even death. This man's exercise of his right to Life certainly has brought discomfort and danger upon him by those who wish to rob him of his rights. The good news in this case is that this man has been upheld his rights.

I do not in any way think that this man has deserved the arson to his house, death threats, or any of the hardships he is facing. The perpetrators of those crimes certainly need to be sought out and brought to justice. I simply realize that freedom comes with a price, and many people in our society have forgetten that. They act as if they should have the freedom of a democracy with the stability of a monarchy. They believe that the price of their freedom was paid long ago, and that the generations of the present need to make no sacrifice to maintain that freedom. To quote Thomas Jefferson once again, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

Today Norman Borden is a free man, with his rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness intact. My prayers are with him, and I wish blessings upon him in his continued exercise of his rights.

[longtooth]

This writing shows wisdom beyond your years.
Good job sir.

[Paladin]

This is what the media was saying before Borden was found innocent:

Man{read gangbanger} who survived shooting spree testifies
By LARRY KELLER

Palm Beach Post Staff Writer

Thursday, June 21, 2007

WEST PALM BEACH — — The sole survivor after Norman Borden fired 14 shots into a Jeep carrying three men who almost ran him over admitted Wednesday that the men had intended to "rough him up a little bit."

After Borden emptied his 9 mm handgun — wounding Juan Mendez, now 21, and killing his cousin Christopher Araujo, 19, and a friend, reputed gang leader Saul Trejo, 21 — Borden spoke to them, Mendez said in the first day of testimony in Borden's trial.

The man he knew as Buddy "was saying 'you guys think you're bad, you're not so bad anymore,' " Mendez, the first witness, testified.

Borden, 44, is charged with two counts of first-degree murder, one count of attempted first-degree murder and two other felonies. He contends he acted in self-defense and that Florida's "Castle Doctrine" law, which expands one's right to self-defense to include shooting a person in a public place, applies to him. Borden was walking his four dogs in October when the confrontation occurred.

Testimony began amid tight security. Trial spectators were subjected to a thorough search. Two or three jurors expressed concern because they weren't escorted to lunch. Judge William Berger, at the behest of the sheriff's office, did not tell jurors publicly where they would be picked up and dropped off.

At the end of the day and with the jury gone, lawyers argued for 55 minutes over a motion by Public Defender Carey Haughwout to prohibit the media from publishing names, addresses or photos of jurors for the duration of the trial because of concerns about potential gang retribution should Borden be acquitted.

Palm Beach Post attorney Martin Reeder called the suggestion "drastic" and said the newspaper and other media don't identify jurors during a trial "unless a particular juror becomes involved in some newsworthy event." Berger denied Haughwout's motion.

If Borden is acquitted, he will be the first defendant in Palm Beach County to succeed under the Castle Doctrine.

In the hours before the incident, Mendez and Araujo watched the movie Scarface and drank "a couple of 12-packs" of beer, Mendez said.

Sometime after 2 a.m., they and Michael Garcia, the brother of Araujo's fiancee, heard voices down the street, Mendez said. The three got in Araujo's Jeep to investigate because they didn't think anybody else should be on Araujo's street.

They saw Borden and a friend walking the dogs, made a U-turn and yelled taunts as they drove close to him, Mendez said. Araujo became enraged when Borden kicked the passenger door of his Jeep as it passed close by, he said.

The group returned to Araujo's apartment, dropped off Garcia, 13, and went to the nearby house of Trejo. "(Borden) was a pretty big guy. We probably needed another person if we were going to rough him up a little bit," Mendez said.

Trejo was the local leader of a national violent street gang known as Sur 13, authorities say.

Mendez was shot several times in both legs by Borden. Araujo was shot seven times in the face. Trejo was killed by a single shot that pierced his heart.

Borden probably thought Araujo — who was at the wheel of the Jeep — was trying to run him over, Mendez conceded.

Borden began shooting at him and the others through the Jeep's windshield, Mendez testified. From there, in what "seemed instant," Borden went around to the driver's side and kept firing, he said.

[pbandjelly]

yeah, I like that: "Sole Survivor."
more like, "Lucky dirtbag, retired from 'bangin'"

[HankB]

Interesting quote in the original story from the prosecutor:

"This case kind of stands on its own," Williams said. "They were bringing a lot of violence to this defendant. I don't think the new law made any difference. The truth hurt me in this case."

Notice the last sentence where the prosecutor says "The truth hurt me . . . "

The truth hurt him?!?

Wonder if that's just a poor choice of words, or an indication of a rather odious mindset on his part . . . and if he knew the truth as he prosecuted the case . . .

[hi-power]

Interesting quote in the original story from the prosecutor:

"This case kind of stands on its own," Williams said. "They were bringing a lot of violence to this defendant. I don't think the new law made any difference. The truth hurt me in this case."

Notice the last sentence where the prosecutor says "The truth hurt me . . . "

The truth hurt him?!?

Wonder if that's just a poor choice of words, or an indication of a rather odious mindset on his part . . . and if he knew the truth as he prosecuted the case . . .

Sort like in the Jim Carrey movie Liar Liar:

Fletcher: Your honor, I object!
Judge: Why?
Fletcher: Because it's devastating to my case!
Judge: Overruled.
Fletcher: Good call!

Araujo once told Borden that he carried two guns and had held a weapon to a woman's head, according to trial testimony.

...three men in a Jeep who he said shouted threats at him and tried to run him over...

But apparently they were harmless, (ya, right!):

Araujo's fiancée, Anastasia Bocanegra, 20, wept as the verdicts were read and was incredulous afterward.

"He got away with killing two people," she said. "The car was stopped. Norman was not in fear for his life. These were not bad guys. They were babies."

[Wildscar]

Araujo's fiancée, Anastasia Bocanegra, 20, wept as the verdicts were read and was incredulous afterward.

"He got away with killing two people," she said. "The car was stopped. Norman was not in fear for his life. These were not bad guys. They were babies."

This stuff really gets under my skin. If they where not bad guys there would not have to be giving that statement to the new reporters.

[stevie_d_64]

Second Amendment 101 -

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This is the easy part...We've all seen this many times, but...

If you go back and look at some of the state constitutions and notice the subtle differences sometimes in the substitutions of the part about, "security of a free State"...

I propose this for further reflection...When we look at the snippet there, some "states" in our Union refer to this as, "security of THE State"...This could not be farther from the original point...

The State is not the state, as in a geographical bounded area with lines drawn on a map...The State are the people! And the people therefore have been inalienably given the right to be "free"...

Thus, it could have been written, but when the intent was to ensure the security of a free state, it was meant to be the security of a free people...

How does this apply here???

Well, when you are walking down the street with your dogs in tow...And oppression gives your freedom a "challenge"...You are certainly given the ability to either be enslaved to that oppression, or fight it as a free person, because your security is an inalienable right endowed upon you by your creator...

It really is that simple...

The man who shot those criminals should not be given a medal for protecting himself...He should be commended for protecting our right to be secure and be free men...

[AggieCPA]

It's a shame that they even decided to charge him.
Thankfully, we was found not guilty, but losing his dogs, his home, and spending eight months in jail for defending himself? Not to mention the fact that he has almost no chance of leading anything close to a normal life now that he's probably become a household name in Florida. You just have to hope that he can avoid any further retaliation by the gang.

[Wildscar]

You just have to hope that he can avoid any further retaliation by the gang.

The sad part is that it's probably going to get worse.

What ever happen to the days where two men would go beat the crap out of one another and then go have a beer and become best friends

[stevie_d_64]

You just have to hope that he can avoid any further retaliation by the gang.

The sad part is that it's probably going to get worse.

What ever happen to the days where two men would go beat the crap out of one another and then go have a beer and become best friends

Lets buy the beer first, and decide later if we feel like trading lumps...

Might not hurt as bad, and it might be a very short round...

Then we can get back to drinkin'...Right???