Florida Father's Mistakes; 20 Years for Warning Shot

Gun Watch ^ | 9 October, 2014 | Dean Weingarten

[marktwain]

Florida passed a reform of its gun law this year to prevent situations such as what has happened to Lee Wollard.   Wollard says that he fired a shot to stop an assault and force a young man out of his house;  the prosecutor charged him with firing into a building, aggravated assault and child endangerment.   The young man was dating his daughter and was 17.

No one was hurt, but the bullet penetrated the walls of the house and struck the house next door.

Under the old Florida law, the prosecutor could offer this dilemma: plead guilty, be convicted of a felony and lose your civil rights, but spend no time in jail, only probation; or take a chance with the jury system, which will not be informed that you will be sentenced to a mandatory 20 years, and will not be informed that they have the right to find you not guilty if they believe the application of the law is unjust.

In my opinion, this gave the prosecutor entirely too much power.   Essentially the  system was put in place where one man can say: if you dare to exercise your right to a jury trial, you have to accept significant risk of going to jail for 20 years.   Plead guilty, even if you think you are innocent, and I will keep you out of jail.

Florida thought that was too much power for one man to have, so they reformed the law.   The next Lee Wollard will not have to face that dilemma.

Lee Wollard made a series of simple errors that brought him to this situation.  These mistakes would not have been made if Wollard were a lawyer,  But most people who are not involved with the criminal justice system could easily make them, because they do not know how the system actually works.

First mistake:  Not knowing the legal consequences of trying to help a 17 year old homeless young man.

Lee Wollard tried to help a homeless 17 year old boy that hid 16 year old daughter was dating.   He invited the young man into his home.   About a week later, things started to go bad.     He put his family at risk two ways.   By inviting the person into his house, he lost control of the situation.   The law often gives special rights to "domestic partners" in housing.   The young man was dating his daughter.   Second, the young man was under 18, thus legally a "child".  Children are a special class under the law, with  special protections.  From cbsnews.com:

Lee Wollard's troubles began six years ago. He was a professional with a master's degree in Davenport, Fla., living with his wife and their two daughters and working at Sea World. When his youngest daughter Sarah began dating a troubled 17-year-old teenager with no place to live, Wollard and his wife, Sandy, took him in.

Second mistake:  Not knowing how to use the legal system to evict the young man.

Lee Wollard tried to get the young man to leave when the situation started getting bad.   The young man and his daughter would disappear for days.   The young man refused to leave.   Police were called, but were of no help.  This is where Lee Wollard made the second mistake.   He could have hired an attorney, went to court, and obtained a restraining order against the young man.  He did not, and I suspect that no one advised him of the possibility.

 "We had tried calling the cops," said Lee Wollard. "We had tried doing everything. Nothing worked. Nothing."

Third mistake:  Not knowing how to use the legal system to protect yourself in a situation where force had been used.

The daughter and  young man got  into a loud fight.   Someone cried for help.  Wollard grabbed his revolver and moved toward the problem.   He says the young man lunged at him.   The former boyfriend denies it.   He fired a shot that did not  hit anyone, just a wall.   The young man left.   He thought his  problems was solved.   Then he made a crucial mistake.   He did not call the police.

According to Wollard, the young man lunged at him and punched a hole in a wall; the young man disputes that. But no one disagrees about what happened next.

"So I fire a warning shot into the wall, [and] I said, 'The next one's between your eyes,'" said Lee.

Sandy continued, "And the kid turned around and just hurried out the door. And that was the end of that."

The bullet had penetrated the walls  of his house and hit a neighbor's house.  The police and prosecutor heard the version of events put forward by the "endangered child" before they heard those  of the homeowner, who had not called the police.   In that version  the shot was not a "warning", but simply missed.  Thus Wollard was immediately cast into the role of the perpetrator, instead of the defender.

Fourth Mistake:  Believing that a jury would make an informed decision.

The prosecutor charged Lee Wollard with shooting into a building with a firearm, aggravated assault and child endangerment. Because of the special circumstances involved, they offered a plea bargain: plead guilty to a minor felony, lose your constitutional rights, accept being under close supervision for years - or - we will prosecute you for shooting into a building with a firearm, aggravated assault and child endangerment, with a 20 year mandatory sentence because you used a gun.

Wollard never believed that a jury would convict him.  He probably did not know that the jury would not be allowed to know what the sentence would be, and was not allowed to be told that they had the power to ignore the judges instructions if they believed an injustice was being done.

He refused to plea bargain, and lost the jury trial.

 "Never, never in my wildest dreams did I think I would be here," he said in prison. "I still have a hard time believing it. It's unbelievable!"

The Florida legislature reformed the law so that this will not happen to another.   But the reform came too late for Lee Wollard.  Lee Wollard's mistakes really come down to errors of ignorance and trust in the justice system.    He believed that common sense and justice would prevail.  Most people do.  It usually does, but simple faith in the system can lead you to errors that will trap you and end with a bad result.

©2014 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice is included.
Link to Gun Watch

[marktwain]

The law has already been reformed. It would be a good idea for the governor to grant clemency.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

The penalty seems way out of line when compared with the nature of the wrong and the consequences. The kid was criminal and as usual the courts favored the criminal rather than the poor home owner.

[marktwain]

“hid daughter” should be “his daughter”

[ClearCase_guy]

The old “better to be judged by 12 than be carried by 8” doesn’t seem to have worked here.

[ClearCase_guy]

Or carried by 6. Depends on the obesity thing, I suppose.

[mlo]

"The law has already been reformed. It would be a good idea for the governor to grant clemency."

Not quite. The law was clarified to allow the threat of force to be treated the same as the actual use of force, *as long as the threat poses no risk to public safety*.

"No one was hurt, but the bullet penetrated the walls of the house and struck the house next door."

His problem would be that this probably wouldn't qualify as an allowed threat since it put other people at risk, and that it's subject to mandatory minimums if convicted. Those haven't changed either.

[marktwain]

Much of the problem is that over the last hundred years, lawyers have succeeded in diminishing the power of juries to a mere finder of “facts” that lawyers decide are relevant.

They are not allowed to know what sentences may be handed out, nor many pertinent facts about the accussed. They are not allowed to be told that they have the power to override the law and the judge, if they think an injustice is being done.

All of that is contrary to the role of juries at the time of the passage of the Constitution.

All of it just happens to increase the power of lawyers and judges. We should pick our juries by lot, not by lawyers. Only obvious disablers, such as financial interests, or being a close relative to the accused or victim, should disqualify a juror.

[bgill]

All because his stupid teenage daughter couldn’t keep her panties on.

[Conan the Librarian]

Guy should have been using hollow points. They won’t go through walls too well.

Make a mess if they hit ya though.

[Popman]

Did the guy really need a gun to resolve the issue...?

The Florida law is pretty clear...

I literally tossed two of my daughters "boyfriends" out the front door for not following MY house rules when visiting...

Seat of the pants, back of the shirt and heave hoo out the door...faceplant on the grass...

[SWAMPSNIPER]

Never fire warning shots, never!

[marktwain]

Maybe not.

It is easy to see possibilities in hindsight.

[july4thfreedomfoundation]

“...but the bullet penetrated the walls of the house and struck the house next door.”

_______________________________________________________

Sure wasn’t a problem in California when the LAPD cops looking for Christopher Dornier opened fire on a Mexican woman and her daughter who were delivering newspapers. Some of the many rounds fired at their truck missed and hit at least one nearby home.

Of course, those cops are still on the job and the taxpayers were stuck with the multi-million dollar settlement.

[july4thfreedomfoundation]

CBS did an entire segment, including an interview with this man, on CBS Sunday morning a week ago.

[Drew68]

The old “better to be judged by 12 than be carried by 8” doesn’t seem to have worked here.

I recently read of a woman charged with a drug offense. She had the choice of pleading guilty to a reduced charge and receiving probation or going in front of a jury and facing a potential life sentence. She took the deal. These examples of "offers you can't refuse" make a mockery of our legal system. Whether you're guilty or not, who's going to take their chances?

You see a lot of this with sex offenses as well. Plead guilty and get probation and register on a database or go in front a jury full of grandmas and face life in prison.

I truly believe there's a lot of innocent people out there who pled guilty to various crimes they didn't commit simply because the consequences of losing in a jury trial were far too severe to risk.

[Popman]

It is easy to see possibilities in hindsight.

Very true...

I have to wonder what kind of parent/father this guy really is...

Seems like the daughter manipulated dad in letting her "boyfriend" stay because he was homeless...boohoo.

It will be be in the same realm of possibilities as the moon exploding that one of my daughters boyfriends "lived" with us to make her happy...

I raised two daughters and will guarantee you I took their virtue very seriously, I understood teenage girls have mush for brains and any male species had to meet my expectations to even be friends with my daughters...dating was a whole other level...

In many cases I make my daughters angry with me for watching over them so closely...

Both will tell you today...It was well worth their headache...

[E. Pluribus Unum]

Should have shot center-of-mass.

[marktwain]

“I truly believe there’s a lot of innocent people out there who pled guilty to various crimes they didn’t commit simply because the consequences of losing in a jury trial were far too severe to risk.”

And prosecutors push for the max for those who chose a jury trial, so that those who choose it will “be made a lesson of”.

[43north]

“Never fire warning shots, never!”

Absolutely 100% correct. A firearm should only be used if one is willing to apply deadly force to prevail in a situation. It is NOT a warning device.

Let the punk’s morgue photos speak for him at the coroner’s inquest.

[Drew68]

And prosecutors push for the max for those who chose a jury trial, so that those who choose it will “be made a lesson of”.

Yep. Our system is broken. Plead guilty and pay a fine, maybe some probation, and have a criminal conviction on your record or face an uninformed jury and risk life in prison. That's not justice.