Sean Taylor Charged with Aggravated Assault

[TheMalcolmConnection]

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?!

[PSUSkinsFan21]

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.

[TheMalcolmConnection]

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

[PSUSkinsFan21]

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

[TheMalcolmConnection]

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?

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by PSUSkinsFan21

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.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

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:

Originally Posted by PSUSkinsFan21

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.

Originally Posted by PSUSkinsFan21

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).

[JWsleep]

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

[backrow]

Originally Posted by JWsleep

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

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

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

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

[TheMalcolmConnection]

Did he have the gun with him when he went back? Because I think that's just where the assault came in and we can deal with that.

[JWsleep]

Originally Posted by Ramseyfan

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

If I go looking to gun down some criminals, of course it's not self defense. But if I go to talk to someone and feel treatened by them, I am entitled to defend myself. And if I'm going into a situation that I think might be dangerous, can't I have a gun ready? That's what guns are for (on this line of reasoning)--self defense. As I said, I really doubt that anything like nthis is what happened, but it might be a reasonable line of defense, given the new Florida statute.

But Sean probably has been witnesses by all his "boys" saying "I'm gonna get those suckas" etc. And I'm sure that his "friend" who got pinched with him will say whatever he can to get off the hook. So it's going to be messy. But all this is to get a plea bargain, so maybe the prosecuter will think twice before challanging a recently passed law protecting gun rights in a state that's very pro-gun. Do you really want to seem anti-gun when you've got to be elected in Florida as a DA?

All this is conjecture. Who knows what will happen?

Drew doesn't return my calls, backrow! What's with that guy?!?!

[PSUSkinsFan21]

First, I really like you RF. Usually we agree on most topics, but even when we disagree, we can both do it in an intelligent and respectful way. That's why I love this site.

Originally Posted by Ramseyfan

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.

Certainly if they shot at Taylor that would be introduced to impeach the witnesses. My post did not contemplate that fact scenario because I wasn't aware that they fired at ST when I made my post. And I agree that the fact that ST thought his ATVs were stolen by the alleged victims would be brought out. However, IF the alleged victim has not yet been convicted of the theft, then the defense cannot say "don't believe this witness, he's the one who stole the ATVs to begin with." He may be able to say that ST believed the witness stole his ATVs, but that doesn't help to exonerate ST in any way, and it's questionable that it would really challenge the credibility of the witness.

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)

Again, Florida may be different, but at least under the Federal Rules (which most states have used as a model for their own rules of evidence), "specific instances of conduct of a witness, for the purposes of attacking or supporting the witness' credibility, other than the conviction of a crime ... may not be proved by extrinsic evidence. They may, however, in the discretion of the court, if probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness, be inquired into on cross-examination of the witness (1) concerning the witness' character for truthfulness or untruthfulness ...." (See Fed. R. Evid. 608(b)). Under this rule, only prior acts related to a witness' truthfulness may be admissible, and even then it is a judgment call for the judge. It's been a few years since my crim courses, but I'm rather certain that acts like theft are not probative to truthfulness unless they involve some deception (i.e. theft by forgery, fraud, etc.). Simply stealing a car has nothing to do with a witness' ability to tell the truth.

Furthermore, you are correct that prior crimes are admissible, but at least with respect to the Federal Rules (Rule 609), the evidence must be of a felony conviction and, again, the "probative value of admitting this evidence outweighs its prejudicial effect to the accused." Therefore, my point is that 1. the alleged victims/theives have not been convicted of stealing the ATVs, and 2. there is a strong argument for the prosecution that the prejudicial effect of allowing any such conviction would outweigh its probative value. Regardless of what side you think the judge would come out on, at least it's worth mentioning that it's still a judgment call for the judge. The admission of evidence related to either prior acts or past convictions is not permitted per se as a matter of law. It is only permitted after the judge conducts a balancing test.

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).

I agree that the issue would be raised. I think I disagree with you as to what effect that fact has on the ability of the defense to impeach or challenge the credibility of the witness. Which brings us back to where this all began......how strong of a case does the prosecution have if it's based on eye-witness testimony? I think the fact that we've gone back and forth so much on just this one evidentiary issue shows that nobody really can tell for sure.........but I think we can agree it's not cut and dry either way.

[skinsguy]

Originally Posted by JWsleep

If I go looking to gun down some criminals, of course it's not self defense. But if I go to talk to someone and feel treatened by them, I am entitled to defend myself.

That's kind of a fine line though. The definition of self-defense according to the law might vary from what you think is self-defense. From what I have studied in the past, I believe you can shoot an intruder and claim self-defense in your house, but outside the house, things can be a different story.

[PSUSkinsFan21]

Originally Posted by JWsleep

If I go looking to gun down some criminals, of course it's not self defense. But if I go to talk to someone and feel treatened by them, I am entitled to defend myself. And if I'm going into a situation that I think might be dangerous, can't I have a gun ready? That's what guns are for (on this line of reasoning)--self defense. As I said, I really doubt that anything like nthis is what happened, but it might be a reasonable line of defense, given the new Florida statute.

Actually, in your scenario, you would be wrong in pulling a gun unless you had a legitimate fear of serious and imminent bodily harm or death. If ST had a gun or some other deadly weapon pulled on him, then that's one thing. If he got into an argument, started to feel "threatened" and then pulled a gun, that's an entirely different situation. The situation you are trying to condone would make it legal for any person to pull a gun on anyone they are arguing with as soon as they feel that person might take a swing at them. I can assure you, that is not the definition of self-defense.

Self-defense has to bear some relationship to the initial attack/threat. If someone punches you, you can punch them back to defend yourself, but you can't resort to deadly force and kill them. Likewise, if someone threatens to punch you, you can't threaten to kill them. I'm not sure exactly what that "new Florida law" says about self-defense, but until I see the actual wording of the statute, I have my doubts that it's as liberal as you've stated in allowing citizens to claim self defense in pulling out a lethal weapon every time they feel "threatened".