Gay Panic - a new twist on self defense
After James Miller retired from the Austin Police Department, he took up guitar, strumming the instrument at a nearby musicians’ bar, trying to put together a jazz band and getting together at the house of David Spencer, a 32-year-old neighbor and a saxophonist who shared his passion.
In September 2015, after a night of music and drinking at Spencer’s house, Miller testified, his younger neighbor made a fatal mistake: He moved in for a kiss.
“We were playing back and forth and everything, and I just let him know — Hey, I’m not gay,” Miller, 69, said in an affidavit, according to Austin NBC-affiliate KXAN.
“We been playing. We’re musicians and all that kind of stuff, but I’m not a gay guy. Then it seemed like everything was all right, and everything was fine. When I got ready to go — it seemed like [expletive] just started happening.”
Then, he said, he pulled out a knife and stabbed Spencer twice.
Miller showed up at a police station a few hours later, at 3:45 a.m., according to a police report obtained by the Austin American-Statesman, and said, “I think I killed someone. … I stabbed him.”
He was charged with murder.
Three years later, the former police officer claims that the killing was self-defense and that he was in a “gay panic” after being hit on by another man.
Such claims are legitimate, viable defenses in all but two states — California and Illinois — despite the work of LGBT advocates and a resolution by the American Bar Association to have the defense banned.
In Miller’s case, the defense was successful. Jurors did not find him guilty of murder or manslaughter. He was convicted of criminally negligent homicide, but he will not spend a day in prison.
The former police officer was sentenced to six months in jail. He will have to complete 100 hours of community service, pay $11,000 in restitution to Spencer’s family and use a portable alcohol monitoring service for at least a year. He will also be on probation for a decade.
North Miami Beach Mayor Charged
North Miami Beach Mayor Jorge Vallejo was criminally charged as a result of his actions during the 2015 North Miami Beach municipal elections.
Mayor Vallejo pleaded guilty to two counts of violating campaign finance laws, statutorily designated as 1st degree misdemeanor crimes, and resigned from office. The investigation arose from financial activities undertaken by a political committee named "Floridians For Progress" ("FFP"), created in January of 2015 by George Vallejo's aunt, Denise Corredeira, at Vallejo's request. Prior to Vallejo's 2015 unopposed re-election as Mayor of North Miami Beach, donations were made to FFP after being personally solicited by Mayor Vallejo.
In May of 2015, the treasurer of the FFP political committee wrote a check totaling $5,000 to an entity called JATC, Inc., as payment for "fundraiser consulting" as indicated personally by Vallejo. The investigation showed that this statement was false. JATC, Inc. is a Florida corporation formed in 2014 by George Vallejo and his wife, Sandra Shinego, with a long-time friend of Shinego's listed as the sole incorporator and registered agent.
Between mid-May and early June 2015, $5,000 moved from FFP to JATC, Inc. and then to Creations Unlimited LLC, a Wyoming corporation formed in 2013 and subsequently purchased by Vallejo and Shinego. Bank records show that the JATC, Inc. money received by Creations Unlimited LLC was largely spent on the personal expenses of Vallejo and Shinego.
In addition to resigning from his mayoral post, Vallejo must serve 90 days of house arrest with a GPS monitor and complete 500 community service hours. He will also be sentenced to 18 months of reporting probation and may not early-terminate the probation prior to completing all 18 months. Vallejo shall also be prohibited from seeking Federal, State and local elected office during the pendency of his 18-month probation. He must also write a letter of apology to the North Miami Beach community as a part of this plea.
MGM Faces Liability For Mass Shooting
- Hundreds of victims of the Las Vegas shooting are filing lawsuits against the operator of the hotel where the gunman was staying.
- The lawsuits argue that the hotel and its parent company should have taken greater security measures.
- If the victims win in court, it could change how hotels handle security.
Hundreds of victims of the Las Vegas shooting have filed lawsuits against the Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino and its parent company MGM Resorts International.
Several lawsuits — the largest of which was filed on behalf of 450 people — attempt to hold MGM legally liable for the shooting, which killed 58 people and injured hundreds more. Victims are additionally suing the shooter Stephen Paddock's estate and the concert organizer Live Nation Entertainment Inc. as well as, in some cases, the manufacturer of the bump stocks that allowed Paddock to fire as if he were using automatic weapons.
The crux of the lawsuits' arguments is that MGM and the Mandalay Bay failed to take preventive measures that might have foiled the attack. Plaintiffs argue that staff members should have been better trained to spot red flags with Paddock.
Over the three days between when Paddock checked in to the hotel and fired from his window at a concert across the street, Paddock took at least 10 suitcases filled with firearms into his room. Police officials said Paddock also constructed an elaborate surveillance system in the hotel, placing two cameras in the hallway outside his suite — one on a service cart — as well as a camera in his door's peephole.
"The incident that took place on October 1st was a terrible tragedy perpetrated by an evil man," MGM said in a statement to Business Insider. "These kinds of lawsuits are not unexpected and we intend to defend ourselves against them. That said, out of respect for the victims, we will give our response through the appropriate legal channels."
In October, the Nevada Supreme Court found that MGM could be held liable in a 2010 assault on a California couple at one of the company's hotels, the Las Vegas Review-Journal reported. The court ruled that the attack was “foreseeable” because there had been similar cases of violence at the hotel.
The question of whether the Las Vegas shooting was foreseeable is at the center of the Mandalay Bay lawsuits.
With several high-profile mass shootings having taken place in the US before the Las Vegas shooting, attorneys may argue that hotels and other venues should know to expand measures to try to prevent them, legal experts told Business Insider before any cases were filed.
"Foreseeability is one of the key components of liability," said Dick Hudak, a managing partner of Resort Security Consulting.
Heidi Li Feldman, a professor at Georgetown Law School, says it's "entirely feasible" that an attorney would make this argument based on the fact that mass shootings have taken place at other entertainment venues.
"If Congress isn't regulating gun ownership, it is going to be private parties ... who end up regulating their own premises," Feldman said.
The hotel industry has no national standards for security, and hotels aren't typically held accountable for guests' behavior. But if any of the hundreds of victims suing Mandalay Bay win their case, it could set a new precedent for the way hotels handle security.
Chariflaw Client prevails in Trademark Dispute
FORT LAUDERDALE — CharifLaw filed an injunction on behalf of Miami chiropractor Dr. Craig Kaler, against a competitor who began illegally using his business name. The injunction was based on trademark infringement.
Craig H. Kaler DC PA d/b/a Ocean Chiropractic Center of Aventura filed a complaint on April 27 in the Broward Circuit Court against the defendant, located in Plantation, alleging that the company breached was violating its trademark rights.
Dr. Kaler held his competitor responsible for consumer and brand confusion, as well as damage to his long established business goodwill, because the defendant began using essentially the same name as Dr. Kaler's, which had been registered with the State of Florida for years.
The case was resolved without a trial. The other party agreed to change their name.
Broward Circuit Court Case number 17-007969
Florida's Stand Your Ground Law Does Not Grant Civil Immunity
Florida Supreme Court Limits Stand Your Ground
The Florida Supreme Court ruled that A Stand-Your-Ground victory in criminal court doesn't help in a civil lawsuit.
Justices ruled in the case of a man named Nirav Patel, who struck a Tampa bar patron in the eye with a cocktail glass. A criminal-court judge ruled that Patel was acting in self-defense and granted him immunity from a charge of felony battery.
But the injured patron, Ketan Kumar, filed a lawsuit against Patel, who argued that the criminal court’s decision applied in the newly filed civil case. The local appeals court agreed.
The Florida Supreme Court, however, reversed the decision, ruling that a judge in a civil case would have to determine whether Patel was immune from a civil lawsuit.
Critics have long maintained that Florida’s 2005 Stand Your Ground law has fostered a shoot-first mentality among citizens and given criminals a pass at justice.
The law eliminated a citizen’s duty to retreat before using lethal force while facing someone who may pose a threat of death or “great bodily harm.” And more vexing for prosecutors, it gave judges more leeway to dismiss a criminal charge before the case is ever heard by a jury.
In South Florida, courts have granted immunity to defendants charged in controversial killings. That includes Miami’s Greyston Garcia, who beat a murder charge after stabbing a car-radio thief who wielded only a bag full of car radios. The appeals courts also granted immunity to a security guard who fatally shot two unarmed men in a Miami-Dade Chili’s parking lot after a fight.
This year, the Legislature updated the law, forcing prosecutors to shoulder the legal burden of disproving a self-defense claim at the “immunity” hearings. Statewide, prosecutors opposed the bill, which was pushed by politically powerful National Rifle Association.
A Miami-Dade judge ruled the updated law is unconstitutional, setting up another round of appellate legal battles.
Thursday’s ruling by the Florida Supreme Court does not mean civil-court judges cannot grant immunity to someone being sued.
That’s already happened in one high-profile Miami case – that of Reynaldo Muñoz, the deaf man fatally shot by a homeowner while trying to steal a WaveRunner from the back of a home in Miami Shores.
Prosecutors did not charge homeowner Yasmin Davis, but did not rule the shooting was “justified.” Muñoz’s family sued the Davises, but Miami-Dade Circuit Judge Stanford Blake — after a lengthy hearing poring over the evidence — ruled they were immune from the lawsuit.
Muñoz’s family appealed the ruling and lost.