| Welcome to the home of some of the Washington Redskins' most ravenous fans. If this is your first visit, please read our rules and regulations. You must register before you can access all of the forums, and to use all the board's features and options; members also enjoy fewer advertisements. |
| Author |
Message |
CanesSkins26
Canes Skin
Joined: 13 Aug 2007
Posts: 6870
Location: Alexandria, VA
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 2:13 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: | FORT MYERS --
Three of the four men charged in the death of Washington Redskins star Sean Taylor were denied bond early Saturday in Lee County Circuit Court.
Venjah Hunte, 20, Eric Rivera, 17, and Charles Wardlow, 18, were charged with felony murder, home invasion and armed robbery.
A fourth man, Jason Scott Mitchell, 19, faces the same counts although he did not appear in court. He will make his first appearance Sunday morning.
Under Florida law, anyone who commits a violent felony in which a death occurs can face a murder charge. |
Rest of the article....
http://www.miamiherald.com/416/story/328037.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
GSPODS
Hog
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 4983
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 2:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
One report states the four men will be charged with "Unpremeditated Murder".
If correct, I can only assume the D.A. does not believe he can prove the defendants went to Sean Taylor's home with the deliberate intention of committing murder. That is of no consequence due to the following:
782.04 Murder.--
(1)(a) The unlawful killing of a human being:
2. When committed by a person engaged in the perpetration of, or in the attempt to perpetrate, any:
d. Robbery,
e. Burglary,
m. Home-invasion robbery,
o. Murder of another human being,
is murder in the first degree and constitutes a capital felony, punishable as provided in s. 775.082.
(b) In all cases under this section, the procedure set forth in s. 921.141 shall be followed in order to determine sentence of death or life imprisonment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
The Hogster
#######
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 7002
Location: Washington D.C.
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This senselessness reinforces my views against the death penalty. I can't help but think that killing these young idiots by lethal injection or electrocution would be all too easy. I want them to rot in a cell until they are old, gray, disease infested, and thoroughly beaten and molested by other destitute miscreants.
They won't really appreciate what they did until they turn around 27 years old anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
BeeGee
Hog
Joined: 03 Oct 2007
Posts: 855
Location: VA
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 6:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| KazooSkinsFan wrote: | I have never understood how this is not premeditated murder.
- They planned (pre-meditated) the robbery
- OK, so they thought no one was home, but they didn't KNOW, which is why they took a GUN.
- He is home, they shoot and kill him.
Which part of that was not "planned" or "reasonably forseeable" consequences of their actions? When you plan a crime, you should be held accountable for ALL consequences of that crime as if you had planned them as well.
I am in no way saying this just over ST either, but it's been my view all along. |
I agree 100% and considering GSPODS' last post, this would definitely seem subject to capital punishment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
GSPODS
Hog
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 4983
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BeeGee wrote: | | KazooSkinsFan wrote: | I have never understood how this is not premeditated murder.
- They planned (pre-meditated) the robbery
- OK, so they thought no one was home, but they didn't KNOW, which is why they took a GUN.
- He is home, they shoot and kill him.
Which part of that was not "planned" or "reasonably forseeable" consequences of their actions? When you plan a crime, you should be held accountable for ALL consequences of that crime as if you had planned them as well.
I am in no way saying this just over ST either, but it's been my view all along. |
I agree 100% and considering GSPODS' last post, this would definitely seem subject to capital punishment. |
The maximum punishment of the death sentence still applies per Florida Statutes. The Prosecutor obviously either does not feel he needs to make a case for pre-meditation or does not feel he can make a case for pre-meditation. In order to prove pre-meditation, the prosecutor would need several reputable witnesses who could testify as to the pre-meditation. The odds of any reputable witnesses associating with these defendants are slim to none, leaning towards none.
Life imprisonment without parole is mandatory under Florida law.
The only true action the defense attorney can take is to attempt to spare the lives of his or her clients at the sentencing hearing. While I would like to believe there is no way a jury would spare these defendants, we all saw the O.J. case (the first O.J. case, not the present O.J. case). You know the one. If the defense attorney can rhyme, he won't do the time.
If I'm full of it, you must acquit. Fortunately for the family of Sean Taylor, it is likely these defendants will be represented by a public defender, not an over-priced media hog defense attorney.
Here's my rhyme: If the jury acquits, I'll pay for the hits. 
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
Link
|
|
 |
ike075
Hog
Joined: 13 Nov 2003
Posts: 268
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 01, 2007 9:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There are two reasons I am against the death penalty at this point.
I feel that Sean's death is better served if this was not his past coming back to haunt him. What lesson will it teach kids seeing that he left his past behind for it only to come back to get him? At least if his death was not premeditated then this tragedy stays just that, an a tragic set of coincidences that led to a man who turned his life around death and no reporter can manipulate the facts around and further drag his name through the mud.
If they are given the death penalty, then that would mean it was premeditated to kill Taylor and while many here would like to get their revenge on them by seeing these guys killed I feel that is emotions speaking more than anything else.
Second....I want this guys to spend the rest of their years as Buhbuh's B$%#chs (he was a redskins fan) and suffer through every day with the reminder of what they did. Hmmmm.....is that too harsh of me?
Ikester |
|
| Back to top |
|
The Hogster
#######
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 7002
Location: Washington D.C.
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 11:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| GSPODS wrote: | | BeeGee wrote: | | KazooSkinsFan wrote: | I have never understood how this is not premeditated murder.
- They planned (pre-meditated) the robbery
- OK, so they thought no one was home, but they didn't KNOW, which is why they took a GUN.
- He is home, they shoot and kill him.
Which part of that was not "planned" or "reasonably forseeable" consequences of their actions? When you plan a crime, you should be held accountable for ALL consequences of that crime as if you had planned them as well.
I am in no way saying this just over ST either, but it's been my view all along. |
I agree 100% and considering GSPODS' last post, this would definitely seem subject to capital punishment. |
The maximum punishment of the death sentence still applies per Florida Statutes. The Prosecutor obviously either does not feel he needs to make a case for pre-meditation or does not feel he can make a case for pre-meditation. In order to prove pre-meditation, the prosecutor would need several reputable witnesses who could testify as to the pre-meditation. The odds of any reputable witnesses associating with these defendants are slim to none, leaning towards none.
Life imprisonment without parole is mandatory under Florida law.
The only true action the defense attorney can take is to attempt to spare the lives of his or her clients at the sentencing hearing. While I would like to believe there is no way a jury would spare these defendants, we all saw the O.J. case (the first O.J. case, not the present O.J. case). You know the one. If the defense attorney can rhyme, he won't do the time.
If I'm full of it, you must acquit. Fortunately for the family of Sean Taylor, it is likely these defendants will be represented by a public defender, not an over-priced media hog defense attorney.
Here's my rhyme: If the jury acquits, I'll pay for the hits.
|
Dude I was all with you before this senseless diatribe about the OJ case, people get over that case. It's pretty ridiculous to think that Cochran rhyming is what won the case. There were several reasons why that case resulted the way it did. SEVERAL.
This is about Sean Taylor. These defendants already PLEAD so I'm not sure why a closing argument would be made. Lets save the obligatory OJ Simpson reference, its more tired than the race card.
BTW, I am an attorney also, so don't recoil to that "I'm a lawyer so I know what I'm talking about" stance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
GSPODS
Hog
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 4983
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 11:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
As an attorney, you should be able to detect sarcasm when you see it. The only point in the reference to the O.J. case was the acquittal itself, not the facts or circumstances leading to the acquittal.
Insofar as stating the defendants "already plead", I was unaware there had been any legal action other than a hearing with three of the four defendants. Admission of guilt to the police is not admission of guilt before a judge. I'm certain you are aware of that.
I believe pleas are entered at the arraignment, unless I missed something in law school or there has been a change in the evidentiary rules of criminal procedure of which I am unaware.
Seeing as how neither you nor I happen to be arguing the case from either chair, we are not bound by the aforementioned rules of criminal procedure and are free to speculate along with everyone else.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
KazooSkinsFan
kazoo
Joined: 05 Sep 2004
Posts: 10021
Location: Kazmania
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Hogster wrote: | | It's pretty ridiculous to think that Cochran rhyming is what won the case |
This is so totally true. The defense picking a jury of poor black women who thought a white woman got what she deserved for marrying a black man was what won the case. No trial would have changed that outcome. |
|
| Back to top |
|
KazooSkinsFan
kazoo
Joined: 05 Sep 2004
Posts: 10021
Location: Kazmania
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 7:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GSPODS wrote: | Life imprisonment without parole is mandatory under Florida law. The only true action the defense attorney can take is to attempt to spare the lives of his or her clients at the sentencing hearing. While I would like to believe there is no way a jury would spare these defendants, we all saw the O.J. case (the first O.J. case, not the present O.J. case). You know the one. If the defense attorney can rhyme, he won't do the time.
If I'm full of it, you must acquit. Fortunately for the family of Sean Taylor, it is likely these defendants will be represented by a public defender, not an over-priced media hog defense attorney.
Here's my rhyme: If the jury acquits, I'll pay for the hits.
|
Actually I oppose the death penalty. I am just saying that when you take a gun, break into someone's house, kick their bedroom door in, say, "Oops, are you there?" and murder them I just don't see how in any human sense of the word the murder wasn't premeditated.
That for me is enough, but to add to that, if they cared AT ALL what watching the house in the evening or at least phoning and hanging up if he answered? And even if they thought he wasn't there, what possible reason did they think his girlfriend, child, step-sister or others were not there? I don't see the difference between that and shooting into a crowd. The chance of murder is so overwhelming.
Anyway, Life w/o chance of parole in the end is what I want, I hope they get that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Link
|
|
|
GSPODS
Hog
Joined: 03 Sep 2007
Posts: 4983
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I would prefer the statute be re-written to "mercilessly slow and excruciatingly painful torture without possibility of mercy, medical treatment or parole."
But the law is what it is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
RedskinsFreak
-------
Joined: 03 Jul 2003
Posts: 2953
Location: Lanham, MD
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 02, 2007 7:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GSPODS wrote: | | "mercilessly slow and excruciatingly painful torture ... |
Watching Bill Belichick press conferences? |
|
| Back to top |
|
ripseantaylor21
newbie
Joined: 27 Nov 2007
Posts: 9
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 1:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I'm just sick of everyone saying things like "They didnt have the intention of killing anyone or Sean." So then explain to me why they brought a gun in the first place. They wouldnt have brought a gun if they didnt intend to use it!!!! And if you say the reason is because they had to protect themselves..that still involves someone getting shot. So dont you ever say they didnt intend to shoot anyone. And usually when you shoot someone they end up getting killed. Sean is a hero. He saved his family, and put his own life on the line. Rest in peace Sean. |
|
| Back to top |
|
RedskinsFreak
-------
Joined: 03 Jul 2003
Posts: 2953
Location: Lanham, MD
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 3:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ripseantaylor21 wrote: | | So dont you ever say they didnt intend to shoot anyone. |
No one's saying they didn't intend to shoot anyone.
I think the technicality of the law is that the investigators found no reason to believe that, as they entered the house, they were doing so to specifically kill Sean Taylor.
That's as fine a difference as there is a difference between "innocent" and "not guilty" . |
|
| Back to top |
|
Countertrey
the 'mudge
Joined: 09 Jan 2004
Posts: 12768
Location: Curmudgeon Corner, Maine
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 03, 2007 3:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RedskinsFreak wrote: | | ripseantaylor21 wrote: | | So dont you ever say they didnt intend to shoot anyone. |
No one's saying they didn't intend to shoot anyone.
I think the technicality of the law is that the investigators found no reason to believe that, as they entered the house, they were doing so to specifically kill Sean Taylor.
That's as fine a difference as there is a difference between "innocent" and "not guilty" . |
1. The claimed that they thought the house was empty.
2. They entered the house with the intention of committing a felony.
3. They carried at least one weapon capable of deadly consequences (if they thought the house was empty, why did they carry a handgun?).
4. They knew that the use of that weapon would likely result in death.
5. That should be adequate to demonstrate premeditation. Unfortunately, the legal system is not about justice. It's about creating new loopholes to con the court with. My above stance is completely logical, and, I believe, used to be the way the law viewed it, as well. Commit a murder during the commission of a felony, you are guilty of premeditation... why? Because that murder was a reasonable consequence of your actions that you knew was either possible or likely... that, folks, used to be part of the definition of premeditation. Murder someone while committing a burglary? premeditation. They must have thought it likely... they brought a gun!
I'm always amused by Justice Hog's signature, as he explains "I am now the "Pursuer of Justice". No, JH... you are now the pursuer of acquitals. Justice is an incidental that you are occasionally able to keep company with. Justice? That was your old job.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
Link
|
|
|
| Page 6 of 8 | All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
