video shown at trial of robbery victim
Lawrence Storer’s trial continues.
This guy was robbed at gunpoint. Once the robber fled, Storer called 911, then got into his car, chased down the thief, and ran him over, killing him. A jury will decide if the homicide is defensible.
Yesterday, the prosecution played a grainy video that captured Storer standing over the unmoving body of the bandit after the chase, seemingly yelling at him.
The jury will have a tough time with this entire affair, but I would imagine that getting robbed at gunpoint would change you. And not just make you temporarily crazy with anger, but forever change you. Enraged at the violation, I might have done the same thing as Storer.
Tags: citizens, crime, law enforcement, news, tampa
Loading ...
August 2nd, 2006 at 1:33 pm
Damn straight, Tommy! It’s easy to second guess things like this when they don’t happen to you. “Fight or flight” is a natural instinct. Standing helpless and accepting your fate is learned.
August 2nd, 2006 at 1:59 pm
if you actually get a chance to pummel someone who robs you – or run him over, as the case may be – i imagine youd take it. so i foresee an acquittal.
August 2nd, 2006 at 6:07 pm
They are going to be very specific with the jury though in explaining at what point it becomes criminal. In my experience as a juror the people serving tend to take it real seriously and will agonize over each word in the judges instructions.
August 3rd, 2006 at 10:34 am
There’s no question what was done was LEGALLY wrong. The robbery was over and the store owner was safe. He may even have just gotten into his vehicle to help locate the guy (which I believe), but erupted inappropriately when he finally did. It was the prosecutor’s perogative to bring charges in a legally straight society, and it should have in this case. But, that doesn’t mean the jury won’t concede to the emotional elements involved (I believe the paper used the term “jury pardon”), or, if they do find him guilty, that the ensuing sentencing won’t reflect a degree of understanding. I notice in today’s report that they made a point of conveying to the jury that he would never do such a thing again, which is sort of an obviously deliberate message to the jury that “Hey, I’ve learned my lesson!”.
August 3rd, 2006 at 11:57 am
as i predicted: not guilty
August 3rd, 2006 at 12:48 pm
[...] Lawrence Storer was found not guilty of manslaughter. [...]
August 5th, 2006 at 6:17 pm
I’ve been held up at gunpoint twice in a six month span, back when I lived in Washington D.C.
I’d have voted to acquit him, too. The experience changed me and changed the way I viewed everyone around me for a very long time.
August 10th, 2006 at 11:02 am
I was a juror on this case and it truly was a tough decision. While the comments the community has had are for the most part based on the emotions raised by this case, certainly understandable on both sides, our job was to decide guilt or innocence based on the law and the facts as well as evidence presented.
The definition of “excusable homicide” fit this case to a tee. It was supported by all the evidence, especially the 911 call relating to Mr. Storer’s state of mind as he was trying to help the police with directions while chasing the victim.
There was not much doubt with the jury that Mr. Storer meant to hit and stop the victim. However, it was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt he intended to kill him.
Florida law says homicide is excusable when it occurs by “accident or misfortune in the heat of passion, upon any sudden or sufficient provocation.” A gun in your face and threat to your family business certainly seemed to fit this requirement.
I just want people to know that while this decision seems to have the support of most of the community, had it not been for the excusable homicide definition the case may have ended with a different decision.
I too am happy for Mr. Storer. But all please know that the jury took this decision very seriously and had to decide it based on the law. No matter what the background of the victim, he was not able to testify and had the right to the defendant being reviewed and tried on this charge.