Palm Beach Post article on past CCW shooting [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Palm Beach Post article on past CCW shooting


rich52us
06-21-2007, 10:40
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/local_news/epaper/2007/06/21/w3b_borden_0621.html


They talk about the "Castle Doctrine" but it seems to have more to do with the "Stand Your Ground Doctrine". It will be interesting to see how it turns out.



Man who survived shooting 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.

Witness Juan Mendez points to a map held by Assistant State Attorney Craig Williams, during the first day of testimony in the Norman Borden first degree murder trial in West Palm Beach.

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.

avmech
06-21-2007, 15:04
Going by what the article stated, to me it was a good shoot. The lone surviving guy from the car essentially said they wanted to rough him up, were yelling taunts, and the driver was going to run him over...................

rich52us
06-21-2007, 16:45
Originally posted by avmech
Going by what the article stated, to me it was a good shoot. The lone surviving guy from the car essentially said they wanted to rough him up, were yelling taunts, and the driver was going to run him over...................

I understand and agree. I think the prosecution is saying he was justified in the beginning (first shots into the windshield), but then went too far by shooting into the car after that. It will be up to the jury, I guess.

beer goggles
06-21-2007, 18:13
I think he may have a problem with the fact that he kicked the door and might have escalated the situation unnecessarily.

noway
06-21-2007, 19:01
I disagree on the last comment, he kick the door , the thugs went back and drop the kid off and came back..

I think the escalation is 2 fold and the victims of gun fire got what's they went after. A fight and lost.

(let's review the facts )

fact#1
multiple gang members hear a noiseplie in a jeep to go investigate

fact #2, they been drinking

fact#3
They are gang members

fact#4
more of them than Bordon

fact#5
The taunts, drive closeby etc....

fact#6
the had the oppurtunity to leave the shooter along but came back to finish something the start

Man I would luve to be on that jury pool. I personally would love to know the backgrounds of the jurors.

If one person with one bit of sense is on that pool or better a CWer, just from the nes story if it's half-way right.

the verdict would have read "NOT GUILTY"....... your honor ;)

rich52us
06-22-2007, 08:15
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2007/06/22/s1a_BORDEN_0622.html

beer goggles
06-22-2007, 08:25
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localnews/content/local_news/epaper/2007/06/22/s1a_BORDEN_0622.html (http://)

Today's article on the shooting.

I'm not saying this guy was wrong but he went home after the first time they drove by. At this point he could have called the police or just sat there where he was reasonably safe. But he went back out to continue to walk his dogs knowing these a**holes were out there all fired up. (I know they need the walking but at 2am go into the back yard)

Just because you don't have to retreat does not mean you should knowingly enter a hostile environment.

Sadly, It is not about the facts. It is about what the prosecutor can convince the jury of.

I really hope he gets off. But we all know that juries don't always see things the same way we would. (and we are not there)

Also I would recommend that if anyone god forbid ever has to shoot someone in SD that you take the advice of my CCW instructor and do not immediately give a statement. Wait until you have had time to collect your thoughts and make sure you can actually remember what happened might even be best to consult a lawyer first.

This guy is partially in trouble because he gave police conflicting stories of the event. First he said he went home for his gun then he said he had it all along.

noway
06-22-2007, 09:18
{At this point he could have called the police or just sat there where he was reasonably safe. But he went back out to continue to walk his dogs knowing these a**holes were out there all fired up. (I know they need the walking but at 2am go into the back yard)}

Hmm.... where to start on this.

Why should he NOT be allow to get his protection?


i.e

if you where in a store and some guy threatens you and leave and you get the gun from the cabinet and then he comes back with or without friends and then you have to protect yourself, would this now be called murder or attempted-murder?

NO!

The above scenario is no different than what Borden did. He legally had the right to walk his dogs at 2:00AM or 2:00PM.He was 100% legal in not having to retreat or stick his head in the sand like an Ostrich.

He was not bothering anybody, he wasn't the un-ruly party, he was outnumbered, he didn't yell at the poeple and got up in there faces.

It sad it came down to somebody had to be shot, but stupid people die from doing stupid things.


yes it would have been nice if he had called the police to get his story in first, but whatever if that was done, and the next day or next week or next month the same three guys came back and wanted to get even? ( which I would assume would have been the case )

It was either now or later and the dices probalbly where already rolled.

Qs: Where was this guy lawyer at? Anybody ever wonder about that?

Also that guys had some great grouping on that windshield ;)

beer goggles
06-22-2007, 13:37
I'm just playing devils advocate here. He made it home after the first incident but he went back out. This is what the prosecutor is going to use to paint him as a guy looking to shoot someone. Then telling the guy while he is shot that he is not so tough now or whatever he said does not look good.

Yes he has the right to be out whenever he wanted to. Was it the best judgment call, probably not.

My point is he had the opportunity to report the first incident or just let it go and stay in for the night. Yes reporting it would have probably started more **** for him. Because these guys were looking for trouble and found the wrong guy. But he left the safety of his home and went back out after he flashed his firearm at them during the first altercation.

I really hope that a jury sees it the same way most of you do and vote not guilty because I may be in his shoes one day.

My ultimate point is that self defense is a much about avoiding the altercation as it is about surviving it.

beer goggles
06-22-2007, 13:40
Originally posted by noway

Hmm.... where to start on this.

Why should he NOT be allow to get his protection?

[/B]

He had his gun. The first interview he said he went home for his gun. But in later interviews he admitted that he had it all along. He even admits to flashing it at the scumbags during the first altercation.

FlaChef
06-23-2007, 21:16
Originally posted by noway


Qs: Where was this guy lawyer at? Anybody ever wonder about that?


first article says public defender.

avmech
06-25-2007, 15:31
News just said he was found not guilty

rich52us
06-25-2007, 16:38
Originally posted by avmech
News just said he was found not guilty

That's great news:thumbsup:

rich52us
06-26-2007, 07:04
I posted the article about the verdict in "Carry Issues". Forgot I posted the original here.

http://glocktalk.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=719839

Ahmid
06-26-2007, 17:34
Bordon found not guilty today.
His life as he new it is probably over.
Gang already burned down his home.
What else is in store for that poor brave man.

rich52us
06-27-2007, 04:45
Follow-up in Palm Beach Post
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/localn...fense_0627.html


Self-defense law troubles prosecutor

By LARRY KELLER

Palm Beach Post Staff Writer

Wednesday, June 27, 2007

State Attorney Barry Krischer doesn't like the Castle Doctrine self-defense law used to acquit Norman Borden of murder on Monday, but he says he has no misgivings about prosecuting the case.

"This office wasn't going to give him a free ride on the second nine shots," Krischer said Tuesday. "That's a community question."

By community, he means a jury. And he intends to try cases in the future where self-defense is at issue if there are doubts.

Borden, 44, was acquitted of two counts of first-degree murder, one count of attempted first-degree murder and shooting into an occupied vehicle in Palm Beach County's first Castle Doctrine trial.

He said he fired 14 shots at three men in a Jeep that tried to run him down because he feared for his life. Christopher Araujo and Saul Trejo were killed. Juan Mendez was wounded. After firing five shots through the windshield, Borden went to the driver's side and shot nine more rounds. Assistant State Attorney Craig Williams argued at trial that the threat to Borden ended after he fired the first five shots, and he no longer acted in self-defense after that.

Florida's Castle Doctrine law overturned court rulings that people had a duty to retreat from violent encounters except inside their homes. Now a person can meet force with force, even deadly force, almost anywhere if he believes it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm.

"The days when they said, 'shoot someone and drag them inside' are over. Now they can just leave them in the yard," said Nellie King, a West Palm Beach criminal defense attorney.

"I would hope that citizens won't come away with a false sense that firearms offenses won't be prosecuted," King said. "I think they will be."

And those defendants convicted of crimes with a firearm face tough sentences, she said. King noted that even though Borden was acquitted, he spent eight months in jail, lost his home and endured other hardships.

The Castle Doctrine states that one can use force if he or she "reasonably believes it is necessary to do so" to prevent death or great bodily harm. That troubles Krischer. In the Boynton Beach Mall shooting on Christmas Eve where one gang member killed another, both could have claimed they acted in self-defense.

Krischer expects more such scenarios in the future. "Who really is out there shooting each other? The gangbangers."

Defense attorneys say the law will help them in some cases.

"I think the Castle Doctrine is like anything else we look at in the law. It's confined to the facts of the case. No factual situation is ever the same in self-defense. (But) it could open the door to more acquittals," said defense attorney Michael Salnick.

"More people may be acquitted under certain circumstances," said Gregg Lerman, another defense attorney. "I don't think people are going to be running around with guns" who otherwise wouldn't be because of the Borden outcome, he said.

A better test of the Castle Doctrine will be in, say, a Wal-Mart parking lot when a customer "is attacked and gets a gun instead of driving off to safety," Lerman said. While Borden wasn't in his home, he was close by and may have been unable to flee, he said.

"What's scary is ... there is always the issue of a stray bullet killing somebody," Salnick said. "I'd like to think we're not going to have a version of the Old West in our community."

Krischer added, "I dislike the law because it encourages people to stand their ground ... when they could just as easily walk away. To me, that's not a civilized society


__________________