Sean Taylor Charged with Aggravated Assault

Argh.

I don't know why I'm trying to defend him. The fact is he DID point a gun at someone, and in my book that is almost inexcusable. How can he have SO many problems in only ONE freakin' YEAR?!

Got me. If he'd have just shown up at those "voluntary" workouts like I've been bitching about for weeks, we wouldn't have these problems. ;)

I know this. He definitely hangs out with a terrible crowd in Miami.

Oh now, let's not be hasty. I'm sure his friend plays baseball for the Hurricanes and that's why he just happened to have a baseball bat nearby......LOL :laughing-

The thing I'm most entertained by is that Taylor felt the NEED to get a gun or a bat. Isn't he diesel enough?

Before my quote is taken out of context, I was simply responding to the statement that eye witness testimony is unreliable and would be insufficient.

All I'm saying is let's not just downplay eye-witness testimony

wow, you obviously totally misread what i was saying... eye witness testimony is UNRELIABLE at best, but i never said it was INSUFFICIENT.

PSU,

First, let me say that I agree with much of your post. Anything I didn't quote I agreed with. Second, let me say that even though I disagree with some of your post - it was thoughtful, articulate, and intelligent. But, the following is what I disagree with:



Second, even if they did steal them, accusing ST of aggravated assault doesn't help them escape their own liability for stealing the ATVs, so I wouldn't be so sure that the court would allow a credibility challenge based on the alleged theft. As I'm sure you know, there would be a challenge to the relevance of that accusation by the prosecutor, and the court would have to decide if the probative value of the information regarding the alleged theft outweighs its prejudicial effect.

That Taylor's ATVs were stolen would come up in the trial (if there is one). It doesn't have to be brought up to overtly impeach the credibility of the victim - it is as likely to come up during the prosecutor's opening statements, direct examination or cross-examination of witness as it is for the defense. Moreover, assuming that the victims are the same people who shot at Taylor, that they allegedly shot at Taylor is going to impeach the credibility of the victims in the eyes of the jury.


Furthermore, as you know (at least under the federal rules of evidence.....not sure about Florida), evidence of past crimes is only admissible if there was a conviction. Evidence related to specific instances of conduct (i.e. the alleged theft, to which no conviction has been obtained) are only admissible to the extent they challenge a witness's truthfulness or untruthfulness. The theft of the ATVs is unrelated to truthfulness because it has no bearing on whether the witness has a propensity to tell the truth.

Evidence of past crimes is admissible in many states even when there are no convictions....they're called "prior bad acts/crimes." Also evidence of prior crimes is admissible in many states for purposes other than impeachment (I'd be more than happy to cite some specific statutes if you really want me to).

Do you really think that the issue of the stolen ATVs wouldn't come up in trial? If so, I very much differ with you. The stolen ATVs go to Taylor's motive and are relevant to a defense Taylor might mount (I'd be happy to elaborate if you want me to).

If I'm not mistaken, Florida has recently altered its laws concerning the use of deadly force. This state has been granting MORE rights to gun owners to use their weapons, even when they can retreat. Here's a quote from a recent post article on the new law:

Florida law already lets residents defend themselves against attackers if they can prove they could not have escaped. The new law would allow them to use deadly force even if they could have fled and says that prosecutors must automatically presume that would-be victims feared for their lives if attacked.

It now seems easier to prove self defense, even though the penalties for gun crimes has gone up. Sean knew these guys were dangerous. He went to ask them about the ATVs, felt threatened, pulled his piece, even though he could have retreated. A scuffle insued. Sean and co. left the scene without shooting. They were later SHOT AT by the folks they confronted, substantiating the fear that led to the pulling of the pistol.

I very much doubt that this is anything like what occurred, but the door is open to self defense, given the new law. Also, the prospect of this defense may make a plea bargain more likely.

Now, Sean's gun was most likely not registered, but we haven't seen a charge of possessing an unlicensed fire arm--Florida is a big NRA state. So the tough sentencing rules are somewhat offset by the rights of gunowners. We'll see how it plays out in the courts.

Fla. Gun Law to Expand Leeway for Self-Defense (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/25/AR2005042501553.html)

If I'm not mistaken, Florida has recently altered its laws concerning the use of deadly force. This state has been granting MORE rights to gun owners to use their weapons, even when they can retreat. Here's a quote from a recent post article on the new law:

Florida law already lets residents defend themselves against attackers if they can prove they could not have escaped. The new law would allow them to use deadly force even if they could have fled and says that prosecutors must automatically presume that would-be victims feared for their lives if attacked.

It now seems easier to prove self defense, even though the penalties for gun crimes has gone up. Sean knew these guys were dangerous. He went to ask them about the ATVs, felt threatened, pulled his piece, even though he could have retreated. A scuffle insued. Sean and co. left the scene without shooting. They were later SHOT AT by the folks they confronted, substantiating the fear that led to the pulling of the pistol.

I very much doubt that this is anything like what occurred, but the door is open to self defense, given the new law. Also, the prospect of this defense may make a plea bargain more likely.

Now, Sean's gun was most likely not registered, but we haven't seen a charge of possessing an unlicensed fire arm--Florida is a big NRA state. So the tough sentencing rules are somewhat offset by the rights of gunowners. We'll see how it plays out in the courts.

Fla. Gun Law to Expand Leeway for Self-Defense (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/04/25/AR2005042501553.html)


JWSleep! That is a very creative and thoughtful defense! Call D. Rosenhaus!

Unfortunately JWSleep, the right of self-defense doesn't extend to situations where you (ST) go looking for criminals (the thiefs).