Driver, Not Shooter Charged In Road Rage Incident

[Glocksman]

Linka

Driver, Not Shooter Charged In Road Rage Incident
Deputies Say Man, Passenger Shot While Inciting Driver

POSTED: 11:03 am EST December 19, 2007
DEERFIELD BEACH, Fla. -- A man is charged with murder in a road rage incident even though police said he didn't pull the trigger.

The confrontation resulted in the driver's passenger being fatally shot. Police are also charging him with a hate crime because of language the man used during the incident.

On the afternoon of Dec. 13, Broward Sheriff's Office deputies responded to reports of two men having been shot in the middle of the road and another man standing near them with a gun.

When BSO deputies arrived at the intersection of Green Road and Powerline Road, they found two men -- Steven Lonzisero, 43, and Edward Borowsky, 28 -- lying in the road bleeding from gunshot wounds. Hygens Labidou, 49, told deputies he shot Borowsky and Lonzisero in a case of road rage.

Here's what Labidou told deputies happened: While traveling northbound on Powerline Road, all three men were involved in a verbal altercation after Lonzisero, driving a white Ford pickup truck with his 15-year-old daughter and Borowsky inside, accused Labidou of driving poorly.

The verbal altercation turned violent when Lonzisero stopped his truck at the intersection in front of Labidou's truck, Labidou said. Lonzisero, armed with a knife, got out of his truck and attacked Labidou, who remained in his vehicle, he said.

Lonzisero and Borowsky pounded on the truck, yelled racial profanities at Labidou and tried to open the door, according to Labidou.

Fearing for his life, Labidou fired several shots from his handgun, striking both men. They fell to the pavement and Labidou, along with witnesses, dialed 911, he said.

Lonzisero and Borowsky were transported to North Broward Medical Center, where Borowsky died Monday. BSO investigators have determined that Lonzisero will be charged with felony murder in the death of his companion. Even though he was not the shooter, under Florida law, a person can be charged with murder if someone dies while the accused is committing a felony.

Because of language Lonzisero used during the incident, he is also being charged with a hate crime.

Authorities said Labidou had a permit to carry the gun.

Copyright 2007 by Local10.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Stupid is as stupid does.
Looks like a couple of racist dumbfucks brought knives to a gunfight.

[Siege]

... his daughter was in his truck, and yet he goes out of his way to make trouble like that? What an asshole.

[Darth Tanner]

his daughter was in his truck, and yet he goes out of his way to make trouble like that? What an asshole.

The two men who attacked him and then died stopped their car in front of him, I assume forcing him to stop. He appears to have had no choice in the matter of getting involved.

[Ayrix]

Honestly, I think the shooters actions were mostly justified in this case. If a couple of thugs from earlier purposefully block your car in an intersection, hop out with knives then try to attack you and you pull a gun on them, I couldn't see any sane court try to see that as anything but justified self defense.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Honestly, I think the shooters actions were mostly justified in this case. If a couple of thugs from earlier purposefully block your car in an intersection, hop out with knives then try to attack you and you pull a gun on them, I couldn't see any sane court try to see that as anything but justified self defense.

I would say they were completely justified. People get in verbal arguments all the time, and I don't see any reason to place any sort of blame on someone who defends themself from being physically assaulted just because the verbal argument got carried away.

[Darth Wong]

They're justified only because of the knife, which indicates deadly intent. If the guy is just being an asshole and pounding on his car, I don't think I would necessarily consider that an imminent threat to life and limb. And I have to wonder why he couldn't simply point the weapon at the assailants as a warning, rather than opening fire immediately. If he did so, and they continued to attack anyway despite the firearm pointed at them, then I could see firing at them. But I have a hard time believing that it happened that way.

Not that either of these two racist road-ragers is any great loss to society.

[Soontir C'boath]

his daughter was in his truck, and yet he goes out of his way to make trouble like that? What an asshole.

The two men who attacked him and then died stopped their car in front of him, I assume forcing him to stop. He appears to have had no choice in the matter of getting involved.

You're mixing it around. The daughter was with the two attackers.

[Flagg]

They're justified only because of the knife, which indicates deadly intent. If the guy is just being an asshole and pounding on his car, I don't think I would necessarily consider that an imminent threat to life and limb. And I have to wonder why he couldn't simply point the weapon at the assailants as a warning, rather than opening fire immediately. If he did so, and they continued to attack anyway despite the firearm pointed at them, then I could see firing at them. But I have a hard time believing that it happened that way.

Not that either of these two racist road-ragers is any great loss to society.

Yeah, I'd still probably be willing to look the other way considering the fact that they impeaded his path and there were 2 of them.

I don't know what other intentions 2 racist asshats stopping in the middle of the road and beating on someones car would have other than yanking this guy out and beating him. That alone justifies deadly force in my mind. If it was just one unarmed guy or the 2 guys without him being impeaded by their vehicle than I wouldn't think he was justified, though.

[Glocksman]

Yeah, I'd still probably be willing to look the other way considering the fact that they impeaded his path and there were 2 of them.

IANAL, but Florida has a 'stand your ground' law that removes any duty to retreat on the part of the person being attacked, so legally even if he could have drove clear, he didn't have to.

Though in the same situation I believe most people (including myself, btw) would have just driven away if they could.
After all, even if you aren't charged with anything, the knowledge that you killed another human being, no matter how legally and morally justified, is a heavy burden to bear for anyone who isn't a sociopath.

As far as the numbers go, 2 on 1, even if the two are unarmed can be grounds for use of deadly force.
Even one on one can if the power/ability disparity between the attacker and the victim is too great.
For example, an 85 year old granny is able to use lethal force against a 21 year old attacker if she reasonably believes the force is needed to defend herself against great bodily harm or death.

[Glocksman]

Ghetto edit for the last sentence:
For example, an 85 year old granny is able to use lethal force against a 21 year old unarmed attacker if she reasonably believes the force is needed to defend herself against great bodily harm or death.

[Flagg]

Yeah, I'd still probably be willing to look the other way considering the fact that they impeaded his path and there were 2 of them.

IANAL, but Florida has a 'stand your ground' law that removes any duty to retreat on the part of the person being attacked, so legally even if he could have drove clear, he didn't have to.

Yeap, they passed that maybe a year or a bit more before I moved out of the state. I remember because Canada was telling it's citizens not to go to Florida because of it.

Some people were angry, I was happy because Quebecers cannot fucking drive.

[TheFeniX]

Yeap, they passed that maybe a year or a bit more before I moved out of the state. I remember because Canada was telling it's citizens not to go to Florida because of it.

Some people were angry, I was happy because Quebecers cannot fucking drive.

That's.... stupid. I mean, that's no different than saying "Don't go to Mexico, because they might arrest you for robbing a convenience store." Do Canadian tourists go around assaulting people? It's not like that law affects the average person. Or was this some kind of government protest about the laws in Florida?

Anyways, Texas recently passed their own version of the law, so I guess we're off the list (Although, it's likely we've been off it for a long time).

[Flagg]

Yeap, they passed that maybe a year or a bit more before I moved out of the state. I remember because Canada was telling it's citizens not to go to Florida because of it.

Some people were angry, I was happy because Quebecers cannot fucking drive.

That's.... stupid. I mean, that's no different than saying "Don't go to Mexico, because they might arrest you for robbing a convenience store." Do Canadian tourists go around assaulting people? It's not like that law affects the average person. Or was this some kind of government protest about the laws in Florida?

Anyways, Texas recently passed their own version of the law, so I guess we're off the list (Although, it's likely we've been off it for a long time).

It was how the law was being represented up there, I guess. They seemed to think it was legal for a Floridian to carry a gun around and shoot anyone who they "felt threatened" by.

[Darth Tanner]

You're mixing it around. The daughter was with the two attackers.

Ah, my mistake.

They seemed to think it was legal for a Floridian to carry a gun around and shoot anyone who they "felt threatened" by.

When everyone knows thats Texas.

And I have to wonder why he couldn't simply point the weapon at the assailants as a warning, rather than opening fire immediately

I'd imagine it was just a hear of the moment thing. I'd imagine I'd be panicking if some rednecks were trying to pull me out of my car with knives. The article does say that he fired several shots however, that strikes me as more than simply shooting the guy with the knife to protect himself and accidentally hitting the other guy.

It just still seams alien to me as a Brit to just carry a gun with you during a normal day going shopping or visiting a friend or whatever Labidou was doing.

[Sea Skimmer]

They're justified only because of the knife, which indicates deadly intent. If the guy is just being an asshole and pounding on his car, I don't think I would necessarily consider that an imminent threat to life and limb. And I have to wonder why he couldn't simply point the weapon at the assailants as a warning, rather than opening fire immediately.

No. You can not do that, not without risking brining down a huge world of legal hurt on yourself for brandishing a firearm when the other side and whatever asshole local prosecutor you’ve got will argue it wasn’t necessary. Not to mention whoever you pulled that gun on might well have a gun themselves, and will then gain an advantage from your hesitation. When you’re in a confrontation with two other people, this risk increases enormously since you can’t point your gun two places at once.

If you draw a firearm you must use it immediately unless the other person immediately retreats, and in this case when the person with the gun is in a car and already at an immense disadvantage it would be damn stupid to wait to see if that happens. Guns are for killing; and when you carry one on your person you use it for that purpose only. The legal environment in the US is such that you can’t really even try to wound someone, you’ve just got to shot to kill. Anything else won’t be remotely easy to defend from a criminal and civil legal standpoint.

[Darth Wong]

What kind of warped legal system demands more justification for brandishing a firearm than it does for using it to kill someone?

[Glocksman]

What kind of warped legal system demands more justification for brandishing a firearm than it does for using it to kill someone?

It doesn't really demand more justification.
What it generally does demand is proof that the brandishing was born of a reasonable belief that it was necessary to defend oneself from grevious bodily harm or death.
In other words, the same justification you'd need to use it to shoot someone.

As a gun owner and CCW holder, I have no problem with such a standard as guns aren't toys to prove your manhood with, and if someone brandishes a gun absent a threat to life or limb, it should be treated as a crime.

[Glocksman]

Clarification:
The laws vary somewhat from state to state, so what's considered a vaild use of a firearm in Florida with its stand your ground law may send you to jail in states such as New Jersey, which, IIRC, have a 'duty to retreat' standard in place.

[Feil]

It's possible there may have been a car behind him. I can't imagine it taking less time to shift to reverse and run away than to pull a gun, disengage the safety, and open fire - and I'd hope that most people are sane enough to run away in stead of escalating the situation.

Frankly, the idea of attacking, on foot, someone armed with a thousand pounds of steel when they have room to maneuver sounds like straight up suicide, even if the driver doesn't have a gun.

[Korto]

(Original Piece)

...
The verbal altercation turned violent when Lonzisero stopped his truck at the intersection in front of Labidou's truck, Labidou said. Lonzisero, armed with a knife, got out of his truck and attacked Labidou, who remained in his vehicle, he said.

Lonzisero and Borowsky pounded on the truck, yelled racial profanities at Labidou and tried to open the door, according to Labidou.

Fearing for his life, Labidou fired several shots from his handgun, striking both men. They fell to the pavement and Labidou, along with witnesses, dialed 911, he said.

Lonzisero and Borowsky were transported to North Broward Medical Center, where Borowsky died Monday. BSO investigators have determined that Lonzisero will be charged with felony murder in the death of his companion. Even though he was not the shooter, under Florida law, a person can be charged with murder if someone dies while the accused is committing a felony.

And here's another fina example of that ridiculous principle of charging (and presumably in many cases, convicting) people of crimes that they didn't do. It says clearly that Labidou fired the shots, and yet Lonzisero is charged. Lonzisero is guilty of threatening behaviour with a lethal weapon, or whatever it would be called, and no doubt some other things (that Racial Hate thing), but he ISN'T guilty of killing his accomplice. Labidou did that. The fact that (assuming of course the account given is true) Labidou would be found to have acted in pure self defence and therefore is not guilty of murder does not make anyone else guilty of it either. It is unjust to hold a person responsible for an act that they not only had no intention of committing, but DIDN'T commit.

[Molyneux]

(Original Piece)

...
The verbal altercation turned violent when Lonzisero stopped his truck at the intersection in front of Labidou's truck, Labidou said. Lonzisero, armed with a knife, got out of his truck and attacked Labidou, who remained in his vehicle, he said.

Lonzisero and Borowsky pounded on the truck, yelled racial profanities at Labidou and tried to open the door, according to Labidou.

Fearing for his life, Labidou fired several shots from his handgun, striking both men. They fell to the pavement and Labidou, along with witnesses, dialed 911, he said.

Lonzisero and Borowsky were transported to North Broward Medical Center, where Borowsky died Monday. BSO investigators have determined that Lonzisero will be charged with felony murder in the death of his companion. Even though he was not the shooter, under Florida law, a person can be charged with murder if someone dies while the accused is committing a felony.

And here's another fina example of that ridiculous principle of charging (and presumably in many cases, convicting) people of crimes that they didn't do. It says clearly that Labidou fired the shots, and yet Lonzisero is charged. Lonzisero is guilty of threatening behaviour with a lethal weapon, or whatever it would be called, and no doubt some other things (that Racial Hate thing), but he ISN'T guilty of killing his accomplice. Labidou did that. The fact that (assuming of course the account given is true) Labidou would be found to have acted in pure self defence and therefore is not guilty of murder does not make anyone else guilty of it either. It is unjust to hold a person responsible for an act that they not only had no intention of committing, but DIDN'T commit.

It's not unheard-of to hold people in the process of committing a felony responsible for the actions of others directly resulting from their own felonious conduct.

...I really can't see why you think that's such a bad practice.

[Korto]

It's not unheard-of to hold people in the process of committing a felony responsible for the actions of others directly resulting from their own felonious conduct.

...I really can't see why you think that's such a bad practice.

Because it's the "actions of others".

Don't get me wrong, I'm shedding no tears over the dead guy. He played, he lost; but his accomplice didn't shoot him.

[Feil]

Not saying I disagree with you, Korto, but restating your position in bold tags doesn't qualify as an argument.

[Flagg]

I disagree, and he's a fucking idiot.

When you're an accomplice to a felony, especially one where you're attacking an innocent person who then pulls a gun and ends your partners sorry ass, then you're criminally responsible for every reasonably foreseeable consequence. A reasonably foreseeable consequence of doing what these fucknuggets did is that the guy will pull out a gun and kill their stupid asses before they can harm him.

If you don't want to be charged with an accomplices death in the event that your innocent victim refuses to be victimized, then don't go around victimizing people.

[Feil]

Hrm...

It's obvious that he's guilty of manslaughter or whatever the appropriate thing is for behaving recklessly in such a way that it causes the accidental death of another - whether his partner was killed by a gun wielded by another person or an auto accident would make no difference on this fact.

It's also clear that the perp was committing a (number of) felony(ies).

I guess what ties me up is the disconnect between intent and result. Do intent to murder and manslaughter sum to murder-1, even if they aren't on the same person? Should they?

If Murderer Max discharges a firearm and Victim Vick, misses, and hits Victim Vicky coming home from work three houses down, is he guilty of murder, or of intent to murder, manslaughter, and unlawful discharge of a firearm?