forums

Former FSU WR Travis Rudolph arrested on 1st Degree Murder

Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement
Advertisement
TheOriginalCane said:
THIS is/was much, much sadder:

Ghosts of the Orange Bowl​


The late Shane Curry was born 53 years ago today. Curry played defensive end for the University of Miami from 1988 to 1990. He was a member of the 1989 national championship team and never lost a home game at the Orange Bowl. A native of Cincinnati, Curry originally began his college career at Georgia Tech in 1986. But when then Georgia Tech head coach Bill Curry left to take the head coaching job at Alabama, Shane Curry decided to transfer to Miami. During his UM career, he rotated at right defensive end with Willis Peguese. A fierce competitor, Curry was known for his high motor and relentless play. He played every down like it was his last. Curry was a key member of the 1989 UM defensive line that was arguably the most dominant in Canes football history, along with Greg Mark and defensive tackles Russell Maryland and Cortez Kennedy.

Curry was selected in the second round of the 1991 NFL Draft by the Indianapolis Colts. After a fine rookie season, Curry returned to his hometown Cincinnati during the offseason. On the night of May 4th 1992, Curry left a Cincinnati night club and got into a heated argument in the parking lot over a blocked vehicle. The argument escalated and Curry was shot in the head by a 15-year-old boy. Shane Curry was 24 years old.
Click to expand...
I F-ing Loved Shane...he was very underrated at UM only because of that AA Stacked DL....But Jesus was he an animal....
 

Excerpts of below newspaper article re: stand your ground law may be of interest to some of you.​


What is Florida's 'stand your ground' law? Here are five questions (and answers) to explain.​


1. What is Florida’s “stand your ground” legislation?​

According to the 2019 Florida Statues Chapter 776, which covers justifiable homicide, “a person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.”

Essentially, it’s considered justifiable in Florida to use or threaten to use deadly force to defend yourself if you think you’re in danger of being killed or seriously harmed by another person. Unlike the laws in some other states, you’re not required to try to run away first.

2. When does “stand your ground” apply?​

“Stand your ground” applies in situations in which a person has a clear reason to believe he or she is about to be the victim of serious violence, but there are some limitations defined under the law.

According to the statute, it doesn’t apply if the person who’s defending himself or herself is engaging in some form of criminal activity. For example, a drug dealer who shoots someone during an attempted robbery at a drug deal can’t claim “stand your ground.”

The law doesn’t apply if a person uses deadly force against a law enforcement officer who is “acting in the performance of his or her official duties.”

If the person using deadly force intentionally provoked the other party, or if the other party has already attempted to withdraw from the confrontation, the use of force is not justified under “stand your ground.”

Additionally, “stand your ground” only applies if the person who uses force in self defense is in a place where they’re legally allowed to be. A person who is threatened while trespassing or breaking into someone’s home can’t claim self-defense under “stand your ground.”

3. What is “duty to retreat”?​

“Duty to retreat” is the expectation that a person who’s being threatened with bodily harm will make a reasonable attempt to escape from the situation before resorting to using deadly force. In almost than half of U.S. states, it’s only legal to use deadly force in self-defense if you’ve attempted other avenues of escape or de-escalation unless you're in your own home, according to Findlaw.com.

This is not the case in Florida. A person who is obeying the law and in a place where he or she is permitted to be has no obligation to try to get away.

4. Why is it so controversial?​

The fatal 2012 shooting of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed teenager, by neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman put Florida’s “stand your ground” law under national scrutiny. Zimmerman was acquitted of second-degree murder.

Critics say “stand your ground” may embolden gun owners to use deadly force when it might not be necessary by fostering a “shoot-first” mentality. Ben Crump, a Tallahassee civil rights attorney called the law “a virtual get-out-of-jail-free card that is essentially a license to kill.”

The controversy deepened in late 2018 when the Florida Supreme Court ruled “stand your ground” immunity applies to law enforcement officers in the line of duty in the same way it applies to civilians, according to a report by the Associated Press.

The decision stemmed from a 2013 case in which police shot and killed 33-year-old Jermaine McBean in Fort Lauderdale. McBean was carrying a recently purchased air rifle that sheriff’s deputies mistook for a real firearm, and he didn’t immediately obey commands from deputies because he was listening to music with earbuds and didn’t hear them. Peter Peraza, the deputy who shot McBean, was granted “stand-your-ground” immunity in court, but the state appealed. The case ultimately went to the Supreme Court, AP reported.

5. Do other states have similar laws?​

Twenty-seven states have legislatively adopted “stand your ground” laws and another five states have adopted “stand your ground” in practice. Three more states have “stand-your-ground” laws, but they only apply if a person is threatened while in their vehicle.

Some states limit use of deadly force to castle doctrine, which justifies the use of force in self-defense by a property owner or resident while at that dwelling or property. In those states, people have a duty to retreat in public places. Vermont is the only state that has neither “stand your ground” nor castle doctrine statutes, according to the state's legislature website.
 
Advertisement
I remember wanting Rudolph in the O&G so badly. We literally dodged a bullet. He'll be wearing orange soon enough, I guess.
 
AtlAtty said:
Let’s not speculate until we have more facts. I have prosecuted and defended more than 30 cases through jury trial and every case is different and often swings one way or the other on just 1-2 facts out of the hundreds or thosands presented.
Just remember that self-defense is based on the Reasonable Person/Objective standard. It is not whether the accused was in reasonable fear of losing his/her life but rather would an ordinary person feel the same (its more complicated but that is basically it).
Once we know how he was approached and under what circumstances, we will have a pretty good idea of how a jury will perceive the facts.
Click to expand...
if he brings self defense, the burden then shifts to him too
 
****. Kinda wild. Wasn't he the dude that befriended that autistic kid that was sitting by himself at lunch at some middle school the players went to for some community event thing...
 
Advertisement
Advertisement
caneinorlando said:
The kid was with his uncle...it was the uncle who got into beef with Shane....
Click to expand...
Still bad that a 15 year old is hanging around a club with a gun but it makes sense when you consider the family if the uncle was with him.
 
hoops156 said:
if he brings self defense, the burden then shifts to him too
Click to expand...
Partially.
The burden of production, meaning the burden to provide evidence of self defense does rest with the defendant. if the defendant does not meet the burden of production, he/she won’t receive the jury charge on self-defense and the jury cannot acquit on those grounds.
However, the burden of persuasion remains on the govt. So, assume the defendant presents evidence of self-defense and has met his burden. The Govt must then prove, Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, that the defendant DID NOT act in self defense. The Govt still has the burden to convince a jury that the defendant did not act in self-defense.
I know this is getting a little wonky but I hope it generally makes sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement
Back
Top