'Stand your ground' plays out in court

The prosecutor was reluctant to file murder charges, but wanted a jury to establish case law.

By ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published July 10, 2007

WEST PALM BEACH - Norman Borden fought back twice - once against three assailants on the street, then again in a courtroom where he was charged with murder for killing two of them.

Borden, 44, was walking his dogs last year when three men in a Jeep tried to run him down. He pulled a gun and shot five times through the windshield, then moved to the side of the vehicle and fired nine more rounds.

He thought the shooting was self-defense, but a prosecutor put him on trial, despite a new state law that grants wide latitude to people using deadly force to protect themselves.

The case highlights the confusion surrounding so-called stand-your-ground laws, which have been adopted in at least 14 states. The laws have perplexed judges and prosecutors.

In Borden's case, a prosecutor filed charges against him, even though he privately thought Borden might have been correct to open fire.

In 2005, Florida was the first state to enact such a law, removing the requirement that people who think they are in immediate peril must first try to retreat from the confrontation. Previously, only people defending themselves in their homes could use deadly force without first trying to flee.

Most states let authorities determine whether deadly force was reasonable. But the new laws create an automatic presumption that a person is justified in using deadly force to ward off an attacker in just about any public place.

At least 14 states have revised their laws to ensure that people don't have to retreat from an attacker. Those states are: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee and Texas, according to the National Rifle Association.

There is no way to tell how many times the law has been used as a defense because the statutes are still too new for statistics.

In West Palm Beach, Borden could have gotten life in prison without the possibility of parole.

One of his would-be attackers, 21-year-old Juan Mendez, admitted in testimony at Borden's trial that the three men in the Jeep planned to "rough him up." A baseball bat was in the vehicle.

Prosecutor Craig Williams argued that Borden exceeded justified force when he continued firing after shooting the driver and stopping the Jeep. But Borden's defense argued that he did not have to retreat, citing the new law.

Williams said he pursued the charges because he thought a jury needed to decide the case. But he privately wondered how he would have behaved in the same situation. When Borden was acquitted, the prosecutor was almost relieved.

The assailants "were bringing an arsenal," Williams conceded after the trial. "It was pretty clear what the right thing to do was here."

[Last modified July 9, 2007, 23:13:54]