Three Detained in Taylor Investigation

[CanesSkins26]

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

[GSPODS]

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.

[The Hogster]

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.

[BeeGee]

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.

[GSPODS]

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.

[ike075]

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

[The Hogster]

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.

[GSPODS]

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.

[KazooSkinsFan]

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.

[KazooSkinsFan]

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.

[GSPODS]

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.

[RedskinsFreak]

"mercilessly slow and excruciatingly painful torture ...

Watching Bill Belichick press conferences?

[ripseantaylor21]

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.

[RedskinsFreak]

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" .

[Countertrey]

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.

[hailskins666]

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.

the death penalty, should be the outcome, imo. not because i think that will 'rectify' the circumstances because it won't what's done is done. there is no going back. but the other sentence, life without parole usually means your out in 10-20 with good behavior. the reasons are usually that those convicted have found god and are a burden on tax payers to keep housing. so they are spit back out into society. thats what i don't like seeing. there really is no justice in american courts anymore.

[KazooSkinsFan]

the death penalty, should be the outcome, imo. not because i think that will 'rectify' the circumstances because it won't what's done is done. there is no going back. but the other sentence, life without parole usually means your out in 10-20 with good behavior. the reasons are usually that those convicted have found god and are a burden on tax payers to keep housing. so they are spit back out into society. thats what i don't like seeing. there really is no justice in american courts anymore.

I'm usually on both sides of these because I'm a big law and order guy, but against the death penalty. The reason I oppose the death penalty is I don't think it's in society's interest to kill people and I don't think it's in anyone's personal interest to kill people no matter how justly deserved by strapping them to a table and shooting something into them that causes their death.

At least on a battlefield they are not strapped down and killed, you are defending yourself and your comrades. I do think murderers DESERVE to die. But on money the reality is we spend many times now what it would take to keep them in jail and that isn't going to change because as long as the country is split on the issue there is no way to end the appeal's that endlessly drive the cost.

So anyway, I think that if we fought for tougher sentencing and reducing parole with the energy that goes into fighting for the death penalty we would get a lot more mileage for the effort.

[hailskins666]

the death penalty, should be the outcome, imo. not because i think that will 'rectify' the circumstances because it won't what's done is done. there is no going back. but the other sentence, life without parole usually means your out in 10-20 with good behavior. the reasons are usually that those convicted have found god and are a burden on tax payers to keep housing. so they are spit back out into society. thats what i don't like seeing. there really is no justice in american courts anymore.

I'm usually on both sides of these because I'm a big law and order guy, but against the death penalty. The reason I oppose the death penalty is I don't think it's in society's interest to kill people and I don't think it's in anyone's personal interest to kill people no matter how justly deserved by strapping them to a table and shooting something into them that causes their death.

At least on a battlefield they are not strapped down and killed, you are defending yourself and your comrades. I do think murderers DESERVE to die. But on money the reality is we spend many times now what it would take to keep them in jail and that isn't going to change because as long as the country is split on the issue there is no way to end the appeal's that endlessly drive the cost.

So anyway, I think that if we fought for tougher sentencing and reducing parole with the energy that goes into fighting for the death penalty we would get a lot more mileage for the effort.

i'm just on a different level. tougher sentences and paroles is soft. less for a criminal to fear. its way easier to nuke em(murder cases, not all). and a lot less expensive. maybe tougher sentences for petty crimes where a life isn't involved. but these thugs who tote a gun as if it were power and a symbol that in their minds enable them to do as they please would have another thing coming if i had anything to do with it. as far a s appeals, it would only take a few denials to do away with it. the should limit the number of continuances on a case like murder, and that would help.

aw hell, man. there is no use debating back and forth on how messed up the judicial system is. there is just too much wrong with society in general to even think of making it fair. i just take the stance that if criminals had more to fear, they'd at least think twice about it. the way i see it any honest citizen can be taken advantage of by the criminals, and the laws seem to protect the criminal the whole time.

i digress. its not a perfect world, its not a perfect society.

[KazooSkinsFan]

the death penalty, should be the outcome, imo. not because i think that will 'rectify' the circumstances because it won't what's done is done. there is no going back. but the other sentence, life without parole usually means your out in 10-20 with good behavior. the reasons are usually that those convicted have found god and are a burden on tax payers to keep housing. so they are spit back out into society. thats what i don't like seeing. there really is no justice in american courts anymore.

I'm usually on both sides of these because I'm a big law and order guy, but against the death penalty. The reason I oppose the death penalty is I don't think it's in society's interest to kill people and I don't think it's in anyone's personal interest to kill people no matter how justly deserved by strapping them to a table and shooting something into them that causes their death.

At least on a battlefield they are not strapped down and killed, you are defending yourself and your comrades. I do think murderers DESERVE to die. But on money the reality is we spend many times now what it would take to keep them in jail and that isn't going to change because as long as the country is split on the issue there is no way to end the appeal's that endlessly drive the cost.

So anyway, I think that if we fought for tougher sentencing and reducing parole with the energy that goes into fighting for the death penalty we would get a lot more mileage for the effort.

i'm just on a different level. tougher sentences and paroles is soft. less for a criminal to fear. its way easier to nuke em(murder cases, not all). and a lot less expensive. maybe tougher sentences for petty crimes where a life isn't involved. but these thugs who tote a gun as if it were power and a symbol that in their minds enable them to do as they please would have another thing coming if i had anything to do with it. as far a s appeals, it would only take a few denials to do away with it. the should limit the number of continuances on a case like murder, and that would help.

aw hell, man. there is no use debating back and forth on how messed up the judicial system is. there is just too much wrong with society in general to even think of making it fair. i just take the stance that if criminals had more to fear, they'd at least think twice about it. the way i see it any honest citizen can be taken advantage of by the criminals, and the laws seem to protect the criminal the whole time.

i digress. its not a perfect world, its not a perfect society.

If I had my way we would have a "life" sentence rather then a life w/o parole or capital punishment. We would have an island surrounded by treacherous water, you would have no comms w/ the outside world (no news, no mail, no TV, no newspapers), no electricity (for the prisoners), just long hard backbreaking days. Unless you're proven innocent at some point and released you'd never learn anything about the outside world again except from new prisoners and your family would get nothing back until you die.

[hailskins666]

the death penalty, should be the outcome, imo. not because i think that will 'rectify' the circumstances because it won't what's done is done. there is no going back. but the other sentence, life without parole usually means your out in 10-20 with good behavior. the reasons are usually that those convicted have found god and are a burden on tax payers to keep housing. so they are spit back out into society. thats what i don't like seeing. there really is no justice in american courts anymore.

I'm usually on both sides of these because I'm a big law and order guy, but against the death penalty. The reason I oppose the death penalty is I don't think it's in society's interest to kill people and I don't think it's in anyone's personal interest to kill people no matter how justly deserved by strapping them to a table and shooting something into them that causes their death.

At least on a battlefield they are not strapped down and killed, you are defending yourself and your comrades. I do think murderers DESERVE to die. But on money the reality is we spend many times now what it would take to keep them in jail and that isn't going to change because as long as the country is split on the issue there is no way to end the appeal's that endlessly drive the cost.

So anyway, I think that if we fought for tougher sentencing and reducing parole with the energy that goes into fighting for the death penalty we would get a lot more mileage for the effort.

i'm just on a different level. tougher sentences and paroles is soft. less for a criminal to fear. its way easier to nuke em(murder cases, not all). and a lot less expensive. maybe tougher sentences for petty crimes where a life isn't involved. but these thugs who tote a gun as if it were power and a symbol that in their minds enable them to do as they please would have another thing coming if i had anything to do with it. as far a s appeals, it would only take a few denials to do away with it. the should limit the number of continuances on a case like murder, and that would help.

aw hell, man. there is no use debating back and forth on how messed up the judicial system is. there is just too much wrong with society in general to even think of making it fair. i just take the stance that if criminals had more to fear, they'd at least think twice about it. the way i see it any honest citizen can be taken advantage of by the criminals, and the laws seem to protect the criminal the whole time.

i digress. its not a perfect world, its not a perfect society.

If I had my way we would have a "life" sentence rather then a life w/o parole or capital punishment. We would have an island surrounded by treacherous water, you would have no comms w/ the outside world (no news, no mail, no TV, no newspapers), no electricity (for the prisoners), just long hard backbreaking days. Unless you're proven innocent at some point and released you'd never learn anything about the outside world again except from new prisoners and your family would get nothing back until you die.

hey, i'm all for that. that would work just as well as death. but then these half-wit bozos who oppose the death penalty and capital(i call it 'just' )punishment would have nothing else to do with their 'exceptional' lives except bitch about the 'inhumane' treatment of these hardened criminals.

it will never end. at least, until we turn communist and someone rules with an iron fist.

edit: didn't mean you exactly with the 'half wit bozo' comment

[ripseantaylor21]

Go read Exodus 21:12 it says..."He who strikes a man so that he dies shall surely be put to death." This is the chapter of Exodus just after the Ten Commandments are stated. Such as do not kill. In 21 it goes on to say about how you do not hurt anyone and if they are killed you shall be killed. In verse 23 it also says "...you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.

So, basically, we are back to where we started. Yes, God allows capital punishment. But at the same time, God does not always demand the death penalty when it is due. What should a Christian’s view on the death penalty be, then? First, we must remember that God has instituted capital punishment in His Word; therefore, it would be presumptuous of us to think that we could institute a higher standard than He or be more kind than He. God has the highest standard of any being since He is perfect. This standard applies not only to us but to Himself. Therefore, He loves to an infinite degree, and He has mercy to an infinite degree. We also see that He has wrath to an infinite degree, and it is all maintained in a perfect balance.

Second, we must recognize that God has given the government the authority to determine when capital punishment is due (Genesis 9:6; Romans 13:1-7). It is unbiblical to claim that God opposes the death penalty in all instances. Christians should never rejoice when the death penalty is employed, but at the same time, Christians should not fight against the government’s right to execute the perpetrators of the most evil of crimes.

[GSPODS]

Which text of the bible are you referring to? The original Hebrew text does not list the commandment as "Thou shalt not kill", but rather the literal interpretation is "Thou shalt not murder".

The difference in the interpretation is the sole and exclusive reason so many religions justify "Holy Wars" and add religion where convenient to have the ends justify the means. Any act done in the name of God is justifiable according to any number of religions.

Exodus 21:23 is taken directly from the Code Of Hammurabi circa 2250 B.C.E.
See http://www.humanistictexts.org/hammurabi.htm

The Book Of Exodus historically begins circa 1490 BCE, or 750 years after the Code Of Hammurabi was written, and covers a period of roughly 400 years.

What is or is not granted under the authority of God depends upon one's beliefs. There are those who believe the Bible was written directly as the word of God, those who believe the Bible was written by man with the Divine Inspiration of God, and those who believe the Bible was written by man alone.

Your post is grossly inaccurate in that it assumes that all members of this forum subscribe to the same religious beliefs and values you subscribe to. That is simply not the case.

Or to simplify the entire discussion, there is supposed to be a separation of Church and State, per the United States Constitution. Therefore, any powers granted by the Bible are independent of, and inconsequential to any powers granted by the laws of the United States.

[ripseantaylor21]

Explain to me your reasoning behind the differences between "Thou shall not Kill" and "Thou shall not Murder" (Mine came from the New American Standard, there are many different translations of the bible.) I believe because it says so in the bible that it was written by God through man. And the reason for my post was to state the fact of what God says we should do about Murder..I never said that was what they would base it on. It's just what God said should be done. And just adding a point of view to the conversation, about if they should use the death penalty. Many others have already stated their opinion on it and I stated mine on the facts of the Bible. I'm definitely not disagreeing with you that it's based on my beliefs. But most of which I stated are facts from the bible and verses that I got directly from the bible.

[Fios]

Fellas, if you want to have a discussion about the bible, start a thread in the Lounge, this is not the place for it.

[GSPODS]

Fellas, if you want to have a discussion about the bible, start a thread in the Lounge, this is not the place for it.

I thought we were having a discussion about whether or not it is acceptable to murder people who murdered people to show that murdering people is wrong. Proponents vs. Opponents of the death penalty. No intention to go off-topic.