The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: twyacht on September 12, 2011, 05:52:35 PM
-
Two drunk and drugged up thugs come on my boat uninvited?....., armed or not,.....wel.....
Oh and this is FQ's County of Palm Beach....Where is FQ???? ???
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/double-murder-charges-dismissed-under-fl-stand-your-ground-self-defense-law/
Double-Murder Charges Dismissed Under FL ‘Stand Your Ground’ Self-Defense Law
In a high-profile example of Florida’s controversial self-defense statute known as the “Stand your Ground” law, a judge has dismissed all charges against a man in what was initially considered by prosecutors to be a case worthy of the death penalty.
Judge Richard Oftedahl of the 15th Judicial Circuit last week dismissed two first-degree murder charges against Michael Monahan, 65.
The ruling stated Monahan was justified under Florida Statute 776.013(3), the “Stand your Ground” law, when he shot Raymond Mohlman and Matthew Vittum because he was in fear for his life during an altercation aboard a 35-foot sailboat anchored near Riviera Beach, Florida.
At first glance the case appeared likely to see trial, as there were no weapons on the two dead men and little to go on except Monahan’s account. In fact, prosecutors had originally sought the death penalty against Monahan but altered course early in the case.
When Riviera Beach police arrived at the scene on April 3rd, according to the Sun-Sentinel, they found Monahan:
“Paddling his kayak away from the Green Galleon, where Ramie Mohlman and Vittum lay dead. In interviews with police, Monahan said the men had tried to remove him from the sailboat, which he had bought from Mohlman six months earlier for $1,000.”
Mohlman, formerly a competitive wrestler who quit his local teaching job in 2010 to spend most of the year in Belize, had previously confronted Monahan for allegedly running up $500 of tickets for registration violations with the sailboat.
Monahan’s attorney, however, told the court that Monahan explicitly stated from the outset he was afraid for his life, and felt he had no option other than to defend himself. Mohlman’s intent that day, as well as his justification for boarding the vessel, came under the court’s scrutiny:
“Witnesses told police that by the time Mohlman boarded the Green Galleon with Vittum on the day they died, his plans were to either evict Monahan from the boat, or to kill him… Monahan said Mohlman never showed him any proof of the tickets and felt cornered when Mohlman and Vittum boarded his boat without his permission. He said he didn’t have time to call police.”
In addition to Monahan’s narrative of events, Mohlman’s blood alcohol level was three times the legal limit, and Vittum had cocaine, oxycodone, and marijuana in his system when he was killed.
The Assistant State attorney in the case, Jacqui Charbonneau, tried to prevent the court’s dismissal by asserting neither of the men Monahan killed were armed, they were shot from 20 feet away, and Monahan admitted neither of them laid a hand on him during the dispute.
The judge countered with the fact that the statute does not call for the assailants to be armed or to commit physical violence, only to have created the perception of imminent violence. The most relevant part of the statute reads:
“A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”
This case could already heighten the already tense debate over the “Stand Your Ground” law, which went into effect in Florida in 2005. As of last October, the law had been in effect for five years and was invoked in 93 cases that caused 65 deaths statewide.
Gun control advocates may try to tie this case into the recent decision of Florida governor Rick Scott to normalize gun laws across the state and invalidate local ordinances that prohibit possession of guns.
Meanwhile, the debate over “Stand Your Ground” will continue as the press fights it out in the court of public opinion case by case.
*****
Sorry,
Good Guy 1
Bad Guy(s) 0
-
Sounds like the proper use of "Stand Your Ground" and Disparity of Force to me.
-
Interesting story. Bad day for the bad guys for once.
-
I'm in an ornery enough mood right now that I would file charges against the prosecutor in a Review Board for willfully mis-representing the law.
No shrug means NO SHRUG!!!
-
Like the story and the outcome, but I just don't like this reference.
"Mohlman’s blood alcohol level was three times the legal limit"
That is the legal limit to drive, not anything else. While it does imply the person may have been impaired, it has no relation to a legal limit.
I do not know how impaired a person with a .24 blood alcohol measurement might be, but just publish the reading, and leave out the reference to a driving limitation if the person was not operating a motor vehicle.
It just seems like a way to condition folks to thinking that the .08 legal driving limit is also the legal limit for other situations.
-
Good call Solus. I missed that, but you are 100% right.
-
Here is the kicker with blood alcohol: .08 may be the legal limit, but the LEO's in my state have taken a zero tolerance stance. MY friend got pulled over Labor Day weekend for a burnt out tail light. They decided to test him. (You can no longer refuse) He blew a .03 They arrested him for DUI. The legal limit doesn't mean crap anymore. >:(
As a side note, the arresting officers botched the traffic stop so bad that his lawyer is jumping up and down to take this case to a judge. Yes LEO's in Wyo are starting to get REALLY big heads on them. (Just ask Pincus) The sheriff, and HP's are not so bad, but city cops are real clowns. Of course, they have billboards up all over recruiting, so consider the pool of candidates they have to choose from. ::)
-
Here is the kicker with blood alcohol: .08 may be the legal limit, but the LEO's in my state have taken a zero tolerance stance. MY friend got pulled over Labor Day weekend for a burnt out tail light. They decided to test him. (You can no longer refuse) He blew a .03 They arrested him for DUI. The legal limit doesn't mean crap anymore. >:(
Unless your friend is below the legal drinking age, they are going to get this one broke off in their ass.
Unless they can show impairment, (which is why you DON'T do Field Sobriety Tests), they have nothing to stand on and any prosecutor would be a fool to file it. Meanwhile, your friend has to shell out $$$ for an attorney over what should have been nothing.
Burned out taillight and a BAC of .03? "Get that fixed sir and drive safe on your way home."
Thank you MADD for pushing to throw the Constitution is the trash.
-
He actually is about to turn 31, so well over the legal age. My point with my whole tirade was that why bother to have a "legal" BAC limit, if you are going to enforce zero tolerance. That is the part that raises my ire. It's the police dept wanting to have it both ways. And here is something that I left out, he wasn't even pulled over by the cop. He was already pulled into a parking lot because his oil light came on and he had stopped to check it.
-
Does he have a CDL? You can't refuse field testing.
Any person who holds a CDL is considered to have consented to such testing as is required by any State or jurisdiction in the enforcement of being under the influence of a controlled substance or using alcohol, be under the influence of alcohol, or have any measured alcohol concentration or detected presence of alcohol, while on duty, or operating, or in physical control of a commercial motor vehicle. Consent is implied by driving a commercial motor vehicle
The FMCSA has established 0.04% as the blood alcohol concentration (BAC) level at or above which a CDL commercial motor vehicle operator who is required to have a CDL is deemed to be driving under the influence of alcohol and subject to the disqualification sanctions in the Federal regulations.
-
The law in several states is that even if you are not drunk, if you refuse the field test you lose your license for at least 30 days.
-
No on the CDL, and there was no refusal. Like I said, there was no reason for him to be arrested. It just gets my blood pressure to dangerous levels when they make a law, and then still do whatever the hell they feel like, just because they have a badge and a gun. >:( >:( >:( >:(
-
Warning: bad words and lots of them.
-
Police Officer goes crazy when he is told he has to obey the law......
Don't know how prevalent this attitude actually is but we've seen a run of major examples of it....sigh
-
Aspects of Law Enforcement with the "Protect and Serve", IMHO, being relegated to a slogan on a quarter panel, has morphed into LE Agencies becoming the 6th Branch of the military.
When the lights come on in your rearview, or the door is kicked in....Baghdad rules apply.
The world is not a warm and fuzzy Mayberry, USA place anymore. The BG's have stepped up,....and sadly, but out of necessity, the cops have as well.
The problem I have is the LEO's, with a chip on their shoulder, a superego, and a me good/you bad lack of discipline, professionalism, and common sense. (see video above).
Sure our country needs LEO's, they are hero's and a front line of defense from our bad elements in society. But the baggage some carry, in addition to the badge and gun, can be problematic and carry over to a militarized aspect that wasn't inherent in the job.
To the OP, it's the same with over zealous D.A.'s, and Prosecutors, etc,... "Controversial" Stand Your Ground Law???? My inner Ted Nugent is screaming....
Just my .02 cents.
-
No, we don't need "LEO's", They are nothing but a bunch of jackbooted thugs.
What we need is cops that serve their community.
F*ck the goon squad.
-
No, we don't need "LEO's", They are nothing but a bunch of jackbooted thugs.
What we need is cops that serve their community.
F*ck the goon squad.
I agree, and what I was attempting to convey. The protect and serve part has slipped away. Our countries cultural slide "downward", and the ferocious nature of BG's, gave the cops all the reason they need to become a 6th branch of the military.
It's damn sad.
-
As was brought up by Tom B. in another thread, part of the problem is the connotations of Law Enforcement Officer. Noting in that description about Protect and Serve.
For possible replacements, Tom B. suggest Public Servant, which they are and, and while it definitely conveys the attitude they need to adopt, it does not distinguish them from non-arms bearing Public Servants...
The only alternative that has a historical usage that I could come up with that didn't have to many negative aspects was Peace Officer....but that still has the "authority" aspect which is what is being grossly emphasized today.