View Poll Results: How did Norman Borden do?

Voters
137. You may not vote on this poll
  • Borden did everything right. Case closed

    21 15.33%
  • Borden caused the escalation of the event by brandishing his gun.

    9 6.57%
  • Borden's first 5 shots were self-defense, the last 9 shots were unnecessary.

    15 10.95%
  • Borden should have gone inside his home after brandishing his gun in the first encounter with the gang thugs.

    12 8.76%
  • Borden had history with the thugs. He engineered the event so that he could shoot them to show them he was a bad mofo.

    1 0.73%
  • Borden murdered two men. He just got off is all.

    1 0.73%
  • Borden does not understand the saying "Discretion is the better part of valor."

    8 5.84%
  • I endorse Borden's actions pretty much entirely--I would have done the same thing.

    27 19.71%
  • I don't think Borden did well at all--I would have avoided his mistakes.

    10 7.30%
  • Norman Borden is hosed. He lost his freedom for many months, his dogs were killed, his house is about to be gone and he has to look over his shoulder for a longgg time.

    33 24.09%
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 32

Thread: How well did Norman Borden do in the his self-defense event?

  1. #1
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Below is the recent story of a man who indisputably had a "do or die" self-defense situation while he was carrying a firearm. He got into a beef with 3 gang thugs, killing two and wounding the other.

    There were some problems with his motives, his procedure, his actions and his judgment. But all that is over now. The man has been deemed to have been not guilty of any wrongdoing for which he could be tried in a court of law.

    He is now a freeman.

    But even a casual analysis of the situation can conclude that his life episode wasn't over when Norman Borden fired his fiveshots from hisgun. Or his last nine. Or when he was acquitted of murder chargeslast week.


    There is somethingwhich can be learned from just about any self-defense event where deadly force is used (or not). AndNorman Borden'sevent seemsdistinctivelyeducational even with the muddling of certain details crucial to a full understanding of what happened the fatefulnight that Borden defended himself many months ago.

    But what can we learn from Borden's case?

    We discussed this case at:

    http://opencarry.mywowbb.com/forum60/3174.html

    But the question here today is: Howwell did Norman Borden do in the most important event of his life?


    ***You can select as many answer options as you wish in this poll.****



    [/b]Palm Beach County man, acquitted of double murder, living in fear of retribution from gang members[/b]


    Nancy L. Othón
    South Florida Sun-Sentinel

    July 1, 2007


    Norman Borden doesn't want to be the poster boy for Florida's self-defense laws.

    He never wanted to kill anyone, but he did. He killed two.

    More than eight months in a jail cell awaiting his murder trial gave Borden, 44, time for contemplation.

    He wondered what might have happened if he hadn't done what he did.

    How much of a beating could he have endured? How many times could he have been run over? Would he have been left in a vegetative state?

    And even though he was acquitted Monday of two counts of first-degree murder in the deaths of two young men, this is what Borden wants you to know.

    "Stop saying I'm a murderer," Borden said in a lengthy telephone interview Thursday from a location he declined to disclose. "There has to be a new word for people who defend themselves. There has to be a word for people who are forced into a situation."

    This was the situation, recounted in detail at Borden's trial last week:

    He was walking his four dogs near his home in the Westgate neighborhood west of West Palm Beach with his friend. It was after 2 a.m. on Oct. 8, in the rough neighborhood where homeless settle and gang activity has grown.

    There was an altercation between Borden and Juan Mendez, 21, and Christopher Araujo, 19. Heated words were exchanged, the men reportedly threatened to hurt Borden's dogs. He showed them he had a gun.

    But it wasn't over. The men sped away and picked up Saul Trejo, 21, a documented member of a violent gang. Armed with bats, they headed straight to Borden, and he fired.

    Fourteen gunshots later, Araujo and Trejo were dead, Mendez injured. Prosecutors said the first five shots fired at the windshield were self-defense, the next nine were murder.

    "When I called 911 that night, I didn't believe I would be put in jail," Borden said. "The simple fact of the matter was that it was a do-or-die situation."

    Borden said he's almost positive Mendez, who he said started the incident with taunts and threats, had a gun that night; his attorney told jurors that Mendez had opportunity to hide a gun before deputies and paramedics arrived.

    "If I had done it out of anger, or spite, it would surely be him that would be dead," Borden said. "I'm glad he's alive because life gives opportunity for change. I hope and I pray he will change, and he will be an example for people to say, 'Turn away, stop, don't do these things.'"

    Though Public Defender Carey Haughwout vigorously argued that Borden was immune from prosecution as a result of a 2005 Florida law that became known as the "stand your ground" law, Circuit Judge William Berger declined to dismiss the charges and the case went to trial. Eleven women and one man on the jury reached their not-guilty verdict in two hours.

    Now he's a free man.

    But he's a marked man.

    Hours after the verdict, graffiti linked to Trejo's gang was painted outside the Palm Beach County Jail. Authorities speculate it was done to threaten Borden. After his arrest, his home was set on fire in what investigators have said was an act of retaliation, and at least one man is charged with arson.

    He was under armed protection when he left the courthouse Monday a free man. He was put up in a motel for a few days until reaching his next destination, which Borden won't disclose.

    He received a police escort to his home on Friday. He wanted to see the damage, wanted some level of closure.

    His reluctance to give even a hint about where he'll end up comes from concern not only about his own safety but that of others.

    "If I remain in Florida, I'll be living under the weight of being armed," he said. "What do you do, live the rest of your life looking over your shoulders? There is not only a threat to me, it's anyone who's seen with me. They're going to feel the threat and they're going to know it."

    At the same time, Borden says, he doesn't really want to flee. He loves Florida, loves the outdoors. And he doesn't want any gang members to get the wrong idea .

    "By me going away, it's empowering these individuals," he said.

    Borden has gone through a "tremendous trauma," said Haughwout, his attorney.

    "I think he recognizes that he needs to deal with those issues," she said. "I think he's got a real uphill battle ahead of him in terms of rebuilding and re-establishing himself."

    Borden also is trying to come to terms with leaving the area he considers home, Haughwout said.

    "He is struggling with that sense of being run out of town and how to deal with that," she added.

    Borden must find a way to sell his property, which was on the verge of being condemned by the county. The Building Department delayed demolishing the house, which it had deemed an unsafe structure, to preserve any evidence that might be needed in the arson case.

    A few possessions were recovered from the home on Hiawatha Avenue. Photos of his sister, who died when she was 23. He has nothing else. His four beloved pit bulls were held for more than a month at Palm Beach County Animal Care & Control before they were euthanized.

    Borden called every friend he could think of to pick up the dogs, but most people had a collect-call block on their phones, and he couldn't get through to them from the jail.

    Even months later, Borden finds it difficult to talk about the loss of his dogs. Acorn, the dog he owned the longest, appears in his happy dreams.

    He said he is a simple man. He loves gardening, likes watching movies and lifting weights. He struggled financially but always worked enough to feed his dogs. He has earned a living doing mostly odd jobs, repairing sprinkler heads or assisting a cabinet-maker. He figures maybe he can get a job in construction. He knows enough Spanish that he might be able to lead a crew, he said.

    He has been deeply affected by the fact that he killed two men, but he doesn't know whether he'll seek therapy. He read many books while in jail. One in particular, The Four Agreements: A Practical Guide to Personal Freedom, A Toltec Wisdom Book, has words he'll try to live by.

    If he is confronted with violence, he'll protect himself again. He hopes that Florida's law, which eliminates the duty to retreat and allows people to use deadly force to protect themselves against bodily harm, will protect him. "How can you put a law on the books and then leave a person to be twisting in agony because you didn't work out all the fine details?" Borden asked.

    Part of his life was destroyed that night, part of his humanity was stripped away, Borden said. He hopes to make the best of his future.

    "I like being free," he said. "I like looking at the stars at night."

    http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/palmbeach/sfl-flpborden0701pnjul01,0,5205247.story?coll=sfla-news-palm


  2. #2
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Indiana, USA
    Posts
    1,606

    Post imported post

    The second set of 9 shots -- were these shots taken while the gang members were in front of him, or were they retreating during this time, anyone know?

    Seems like he had enough reason to firearm them -- I would have aquitted him, but I am wondering, did he walk a little faster to get home after the first encounter, or just do his normal thing and could care less if they came back cause he was armed.

    Personally, I would have gotten home as fast I could have after they left and called the police. If three people are coming back, I do not want to be there, even if I am armed. Not trying to be a sissy boy -- but I would rather make sure I am safe in the comforts of my home and have the police go deal with this type of scum.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Utah, USA
    Posts
    56

    Post imported post

    I don't feel like I know enough about this man or his situation to tell whether or not he went too far. Two different men can do the exact same thing and one of them would be justified while the other guilty of crime. From the facts I am aware of I don't think I would have convicted him. I am not a fan of brandishing but he gave them every opportunity to know what they were dealing with. If someone came after me after they found out I was armed I would automatically asume all three were armed with more than a baseball bat. It is hard to know. I just don't like gansters either so I am less likely to feel sympathetic. This story does show to me that a person had better make sure it is worth it. It looks like more than likely he will have to either leave town or defend himself again in the future. Both options stink pretty bad.

  4. #4
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    openryan wrote:
    The second set of 9 shots -- were these shots taken while the gang members were in front of him, or were they retreating during this time, anyone know?
    The last 9 shots were discharged after the 3 guys in the jeep crashed. They were still in the jeep--condition unknown.


    openryan wrote:
    Seems like he had enough reason to firearm them -- I would have aquitted him, but I am wondering, did he walk a little faster to get home after the first encounter, or just do his normal thing and could care less if they came back cause he was armed.
    Borden certainly had reason to fire 5 times as they approachedhim in the jeep. But didhe engineer the escalation of events and did he have a right to fire the last 9 shots?

    After the first encounter he didn't walk faster anywhere, I don't think. He kept walking his dogs. That was bad judgment, IMO. Gun-first thinking for sure.

    Macho, macho, man. He wanted to be, a macho man.



    openryan wrote:
    Personally, I would have gotten home as fast I could have after they left and called the police. If three people are coming back, I do not want to be there, even if I am armed. Not trying to be a sissy boy -- but I would rather make sure I am safe in the comforts of my home and have the police go deal with this type of scum.
    That's a reasonable approach you've got there.

    I'm thinking that Norman Borden wishes he'd tried that. Guess he got taken up by the moment. :?

  5. #5
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    openryan wrote:
    The second set of 9 shots -- were these shots taken while the gang members were in front of him, or were they retreating during this time, anyone know?
    Another point about the 9 shot set. Borden evidently shot one of the guys in the face. Repeatedly. 7 times, according to one report.

    Messy.

    And the deceased's family is notpleasedabout that.



  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    10

    Post imported post

    I think the biggest thing that pisses me off reading this... the county put the dogs to sleep. Pretty much one of the main reason this whole thing started was because he was protecting his animals. Im an animal lover and that just pisses me off. I would say what happened to him is the worst, but it sounds like those dogs were a big part of his life that he lost. He got his freedom... eventually, I hope things really do work out for him. I don't care if he should've walked home faster, he had his legal right to be where he was, even after he displayed his firearm.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    797

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    openryan wrote:
    The second set of 9 shots -- were these shots taken while the gang members were in front of him, or were they retreating during this time, anyone know?
    Another point about the 9 shot set. Borden evidently shot one of the guys in the face. Repeatedly. 7 times, according to one report.

    Messy.

    And the deceased's family is notpleasedabout that.

    If shooting somebody is considered deadly force, why does it matter if you shoot in the face or the toe? Same thing.

    I don't understand why the number of shots matters in cases. Almost anyone that has used a firearm in a situation before (LEO and non-LEO alike) will tell you that once shooting starts, they pretty much empty mags before they realize it....

    I agree the worst part of this incident is his dogs were killed. He must not have any friends or family anywhere. Sounds like a pretty lonely person....

  8. #8
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    kurtmax_0 wrote:
    HankT wrote:
    openryan wrote:
    The second set of 9 shots -- were these shots taken while the gang members were in front of him, or were they retreating during this time, anyone know?
    Another point about the 9 shot set. Borden evidently shot one of the guys in the face. Repeatedly. 7 times, according to one report.

    Messy.

    And the deceased's family is notpleasedabout that.

    If shooting somebody is considered deadly force, why does it matter if you shoot in the face or the toe? Same thing.

    I don't understand why the number of shots matters in cases.
    Hardly anyone shoots a guy in the face 7 times. Of the, I dunno, 40-50 thousand or so people who get shot every year, I don't recally hearing of anyone getting shot in the face 7 times.

    Is your position that once you have one justification to use deadly force that you can shoot the guy anywhere and any number of times? And that it makes no difference?

    That's an interesting positionto hold. It actually, in a not too strained manner, supports the antis' position on mag size limits. A position which is certainly ludicrous otherwise.

  9. #9
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    797

    Post imported post

    I'm only telling you what I've heard from other people that have actually shot or shot at people. I haven't ever needed to do so.

    They all say that once the shooting starts, with all the adreniline and tunnel vision and all the other stuff going on, that you loose track of how much you are shooting.

    The LEOs have it worst. They tell me that once they hear gunfire, either the suspect's or their own officers, they all go trigger happy.....

    And again, from a logical standpoint, since gunfire is considered deadly force, why does it make a difference if you kill somebody with one shot, or kill them with 100,000 shots.... regardless of the position of shots. Dead is dead. Are they 'more dead' if shot in the face seven times? I mean, you already intend to kill them....

    It's also possible that he just happened to be shot in the face seven times. From the articles I've read it seems that he was just plugging the car.... it's possible that seven bullets could hit there. Even if he walked up and started shooting, what if the guy was reaching for knife/bat/firearm?

    Now, if he's already dead, then there is no point in shooting more, but I don't see why it would be criminal to shoot more. Might want to stick somebody in the funny farm for shooting a corpse, but meh....

  10. #10
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Indiana, USA
    Posts
    1,606

    Post imported post

    HankT wrote:
    openryan wrote:
    The second set of 9 shots -- were these shots taken while the gang members were in front of him, or were they retreating during this time, anyone know?
    The last 9 shots were discharged after the 3 guys in the jeep crashed. They were still in the jeep--condition unknown.


    openryan wrote:
    Seems like he had enough reason to firearm them -- I would have aquitted him, but I am wondering, did he walk a little faster to get home after the first encounter, or just do his normal thing and could care less if they came back cause he was armed.
    Borden certainly had reason to fire 5 times as they approachedhim in the jeep. But didhe engineer the escalation of events and did he have a right to fire the last 9 shots?

    After the first encounter he didn't walk faster anywhere, I don't think. He kept walking his dogs. That was bad judgment, IMO. Gun-first thinking for sure.

    Macho, macho, man. He wanted to be, a macho man.



    openryan wrote:
    Personally, I would have gotten home as fast I could have after they left and called the police. If three people are coming back, I do not want to be there, even if I am armed. Not trying to be a sissy boy -- but I would rather make sure I am safe in the comforts of my home and have the police go deal with this type of scum.
    That's a reasonable approach you've got there.

    I'm thinking that Norman Borden wishes he'd tried that. Guess he got taken up by the moment. :?
    Aren't you answering your own question here?

  11. #11
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    kurtmax_0 wrote:
    They all say that once the shooting starts, with all the adreniline and tunnel vision and all the other stuff going on, that you loose track of how much you are shooting.

    The LEOs have it worst. They tell me that once they hear gunfire, either the suspect's or their own officers, they all go trigger happy.....
    I'm not sure that cato and LEO 229 would appreciate that generalisation...

    Especially since LEOs are trained to avoid going "trigger happy." And if a LEO ever shot one guy in the face 7 times, there'd be an investigation for sure.

    I think you needa new source to "tell you" better stuff.


    kurtmax_0 wrote:
    And again, from a logical standpoint, since gunfire is considered deadly force, why does it make a difference if you kill somebody with one shot, or kill them with 100,000 shots.... regardless of the position of shots. Dead is dead. Are they 'more dead' if shot in the face seven times? I mean, you already intend to kill them....

    Well, obviously, it makes a BIG difference. You're distorting the situation now. No one can even be shot 100,000 times. We did a poll on carry ammo. No one carries that much. Small wonder, too, as that would be over 7,000 mags! Have you ever carried 7,000 magazines?

    Your "logical stantpoint" here isn't.

    Nuff said.


    kurtmax_0 wrote:

    It's also possible that he just happened to be shot in the face seven times. From the articles I've read it seems that he was just plugging the car.... it's possible that seven bullets could hit there. Even if he walked up and started shooting, what if the guy was reaching for knife/bat/firearm?

    Now, if he's already dead, then there is no point in shooting more, but I don't see why it would be criminal to shoot more. Might want to stick somebody in the funny farm for shooting a corpse, but meh....
    No, I think you read it wrong. He was "plugging" thejeep when it went by him. That's when Borden fired the first 5 shots. Those shots were indisputably self-defense. After the jeep went past him and crashed, Borden approached the vehicle and fired 9 more times. (And yes, there was a bat in the vehicle.)Apparently 7 of those times was one guy in the face. I guess he wanted to change the guy's looks or something.You dobring up a good point, though. The guy might have already been dead technically.

    But, hey, without a coroner's report....how would Borden KNOW that hewas shooting acorpse?

    Anyways, shooting a guy 7 times in the face...well, it onlylooks bad. ButBorden got a clean bill of health in court, so, no worries there. And the family and friends of the deceased...they'll getover it at some point...




  12. #12
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Indiana, USA
    Posts
    1,606

    Post imported post

    kurtmax_0 wrote:
    I'm only telling you what I've heard from other people that have actually shot or shot at people. I haven't ever needed to do so.

    They all say that once the shooting starts, with all the adreniline and tunnel vision and all the other stuff going on, that you loose track of how much you are shooting.

    The LEOs have it worst. They tell me that once they hear gunfire, either the suspect's or their own officers, they all go trigger happy.....

    And again, from a logical standpoint, since gunfire is considered deadly force, why does it make a difference if you kill somebody with one shot, or kill them with 100,000 shots.... regardless of the position of shots. Dead is dead. Are they 'more dead' if shot in the face seven times? I mean, you already intend to kill them....

    It's also possible that he just happened to be shot in the face seven times. From the articles I've read it seems that he was just plugging the car.... it's possible that seven bullets could hit there. Even if he walked up and started shooting, what if the guy was reaching for knife/bat/firearm?

    Now, if he's already dead, then there is no point in shooting more, but I don't see why it would be criminal to shoot more. Might want to stick somebody in the funny farm for shooting a corpse, but meh....
    I could see a possibly 10 shorts in a single person, and even that would probably be a lot, you figure someone carries a fully loaded mag in the gun, plus one possibly two additional magazines for a total of 25 rounds for a 1911, I only carry one mag in the gun, but even if I carried 2, I would still have 49 total rounds of 9mm (16+1).

    Also you said "I mean, you already intend to kill them...."

    -Self defense is NOT premeditated, although I can vaguely see what you are trying to say here.


    If you had a 9mm with 49 rounds, which I think is quite a lot of ammo on your person for only having a weapon for self defense... You might get 50% in your target if you are truly defending yourself and moving as well as firing on a moving target, most likely these crimes are at night as well, so visibility is poor, and on top of all this, most people are not adequately trained in self defense situations, so that 50% may now be quite a bit lower.

    My point here is that once they are dead, they are dead (you are correct!). Also, it can be viewed that by 5 or 6 head shots, that it went beyond personal defense and into an act of rage after the defensive part already ended and the threat ceased.

    I could see a few extra rounds just to make sure the threat was over, but anything over 10 rounds (unless you are a very very poor shot, or using a .22 or some other small caliber), I think could be seen as malicious.

    Also during all this you would be reloading, and if you did not already eliminate the threat, they would probably retreat, which would diminish the number of 'good shots' you would be able to fire, and if the threat is retreating, and you continue to follow them, then it becomes offensive on your part.

    If this comes across unclear, let me know, I kind of rambled on a bit I think.


  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Moscow, ID
    Posts
    218

    Post imported post

    The article didn't paint a very clear picture. All I can say with any degree of certainty is I'm not crying over the world's loss of two scumbags.

  14. #14
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    Lew wrote:
    All I can say with any degree of certainty is I'm not crying over the world's loss of two scumbags.
    Iget that point and I agree.But there is another point that also has the same degree of certainty in the subject case. It is visible but most of us have to look for it. That is that, even if youdo everthing right (orsome right and somewrong, as was the case withBorden) the gun doesn't solve everything.

    Norman Borden's world is worse today because of the event that happened many months ago and his escalating participation in it. I'd guesshe thinks about that a lot nowadays.

    Another thing in the case that is apparent to the same degree of certainty:

    It wasavoidable.

  15. #15
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    , Indiana, USA
    Posts
    1,606

    Post imported post

    I agree, it was avoidable to a point. He knew after the first encounter that something wasn't right, I am not saying he was 'looking for trouble', but he should have reported the incident.

    But I am sure that he had the mentality, "this is my neighborhood too", and did not want to back down or else he would get walked all over, which is not an unreasonable point of view, but I think getting the police involved after the first event, or getting out of the area quickly, would have been key here.

  16. #16
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    openryan wrote:
    I agree, it was avoidable to a point. He knew after the first encounter that something wasn't right, I am not saying he was 'looking for trouble', but he should have reported the incident.

    But I am sure that he had the mentality, "this is my neighborhood too", and did not want to back down or else he would get walked all over, which is not an unreasonable point of view, but I think getting the police involved after the first event, or getting out of the area quickly, would have been key here.
    I would generally agree with your guess about what motivated Borden to act as he did. Your guess makes sense to me.

    I think the initial brandishing was the 2nd biggest problem in what Borden did. But I still can't figure out why the three guys came back to look for a guy who they knew had a gun. Something about that bothers me. I just can't figure it out.

    In the end, a valid question has to be: Was it worth it?

    It's an inescapable question after any shooting--even aside from the legal consequences.

    I know the story hasreminded me of some important factors to consider in SD events. I think we can all learn something from the Borden case. And I hope he makes out OK in the future.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    46

    Post imported post

    Of course it was worth it. What would you have him do? As for all the second guessing about who kept escalating the situation, it wasn't him. They had continuously harrassed him, he had approached the father of one of them to try to keep the harrassment from continuing. He had tried to make peace with the guy he eventually killed and was rebuffed. He saved their lives the first time that night when he prevented exit from the vehicle. At that time they saw that he was armed. Still they returned with more help and tried to run over him.

    Just how many breaks do you think this scum should have gotten?

  18. #18
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Centennial, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    1,412

    Post imported post

    Only voted 10. Although I endorse his actions, I cant say I would do the same. If s**t goes down, who knows what your exact decisions and actions will be?

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Bellingham, ,
    Posts
    608

    Post imported post

    a group of people (or one person) threatens my safety, i'm going to exhaust every resourceavailable to me until i'm absolutely positive there is no threat... sure he kept firing,I'd like to think i might have more restaint.... but i know better

  20. #20
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    , Tennessee, USA
    Posts
    450

    Post imported post

    It's pretty clear that the thugs decided to return and confront Borden. Borden did not go looking for them. Could he have forseen that? Maybe. Could he have prevented the final incident if he had known? I wouldsuspect no... though he may have been able to delay it to another day or time.

    Was he obligated to be absolutely certain that the three intended to kill him before defending himself? No, all he had to go on was his fear of harm based on their threats and aggressive second approach.

    Is the number of rounds fired a factor in moral justification? No, not when the intent is to stop the threat, and ensure that. To quote a police representative after several officers shot a criminal trapped under a tree-limb over a hundred times: "I suspect the only reason 110 rounds was all that was fired was that's all the ammunition they had," Judd said. Should there be a double-standard for LE vs. private citizens?

    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,216898,00.html

    Was he justified in showing or 'brandishing' his weapon in the first incident? Probably not... that action could have been what triggered the aggressive nature of their second encounter. But, on the other hand,it could also have been what prevented them from attacking him during the first encounter,thus simplypostponing the inevitable...

    I would have donea fewthings differently than Borden, but I have little doubt thatthe use of deadly force in self defense was appropriate and necessary... And I probably would have kept shooting until slide-lock or they stopped moving, too. The events preceding the incident are kind of grey... but it would take a giant leap of the imagination to assume that Borden was lying in wait for the aggressors to return just so he could shoot them. Any story in which the bad people lose makes me sleep better, 2 out of 3 ain't bad. The reaction of the rest of the gang, in terms of the threats and vandalism, is a sure sign of who the bad guys are in this whole mess. I'll never complain about there being a few less of them.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Marco's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Greene County
    Posts
    3,844

    Post imported post


    If you think like a Statist, act like one, or back some, you've given up on freedom and have gone over to the dark side.
    The easiest ex. but probably the most difficult to grasp for gun owners is that fool permission slip so many of you have, especially if you show it off with pride. You should recognize it as an embarrassment, an infringement, a travesty and an affront to a free person.


    ~Alan Korwin

  22. #22
    Regular Member sccrref's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Virginia Beach, VA, , USA
    Posts
    741

    Post imported post

    Some points I did not see brought up. (1) Florida had recently enacted the stand your ground law. No need to legally hurry home. Not to metion who would be stupid enough to come back looking for someone they knew was armed with a gun. (2) Previously discussed to great length on this forum, LEOs are not required by law to defend or protect an individual. (3) It was not noted how they were approaching him in the jeep other than they had bats and he believed one of them to have a gun, so he may have been justified deadly force based on they were trying to run him over with the jeep. (4) If he ran home, they may have known where he lived, who says the same result would not have happened at his house? (5) Not being there, I do not know what happened <if anything> by the thugs that may have caused Borden to stillfear for his or other's lives.

    I do not agree with all that he did but I feel he did what he needed to do to protect himself. He was alive at the end of his shift. I would gladly <maybe not gladly> spend some time in jail vice eternity in a coffin.

  23. #23
    State Researcher HankT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Invisible Mode
    Posts
    6,217

    Post imported post

    sccrref wrote:
    ...he did what he needed to do to protect himself. He was alive at the end of his shift. I would gladly <maybe not gladly> spend some time in jail vice eternity in a coffin.




    I wonder how ole Norman is doing today. I wonder where he lives? Works? Hangs out? Walks his new dogs?

    Other people are probably wondering too...



    Although, I must say my assessment of Borden's capabilities has gone up since I saw this:







    :what::what::what::what::what:


  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    222

    Post imported post

    openryan wrote:
    The second set of 9 shots -- were these shots taken while the gang members were in front of him, or were they retreating during this time, anyone know?

    Seems like he had enough reason to firearm them -- I would have aquitted him, but I am wondering, did he walk a little faster to get home after the first encounter, or just do his normal thing and could care less if they came back cause he was armed.

    Personally, I would have gotten home as fast I could have after they left and called the police. If three people are coming back, I do not want to be there, even if I am armed. Not trying to be a sissy boy -- but I would rather make sure I am safe in the comforts of my home and have the police go deal with this type of scum.


    "There's plenty of time to be tough when you're out of sight."

  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    3

    Post imported post

    and the plot thickens:

    "attorney Haughwouts questions appear to have been part of a strategy to portray Owen as sexually confuse"

    from: http://vlex.com/vid/38235823

    hmmm


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •