Looks like an attitudinal problem that was ultimately corrected.
Posted on 11/02/2021 7:58:47 AM PDT by marktwain
A man involved in a deadly road rage incident last year in Golden Gate Estates is immune from civil action under the “Stand Your Ground” law, a judge in the 20th Judicial Circuit Court in Collier County ruled.
Circuit Judge Blake Adams dismissed a wrongful death suit on Friday, filed by the family of David Norgard, 24, of Golden Gate Estates, who died after he sustained two gunshot wounds to the chest near 16th Avenue Southwest and 23rd Street Southwest around 9 p.m. March 1, 2019.
The shooter was cleared of criminal wrongdoing a few months after the incident by the sheriff’s and state attorney’s offices. Both entities stated Norgard’s death was a justifiable homicide based on Stand Your Ground law.
At the time, both redacted the shooter’s name and other identifying information from public records, citing Marsy’s Law.
Marsy’s Law can be used by public institutions to prevent the disclosure of information or records that could be used to locate or harass a victim or a victim's family. The shooter was a victim of battery during the incident, according to the sheriff’s office and state attorney’s office.
Norgard’s attorney, Christopher Brown, hired an investigator who spent months poring through evidence, talking to people and chasing down leads to learn the identity of the shooter: Israel Elledias. A memorial for David Norgard is pictured on Jan. 10, 2020, near the intersection in Golden Gate Estates where he was killed. Norgard was shot during a road rage incident near 16th Avenue Southwest and 23rd Street Southwest on March 1, 2019.
At the time of its filing, the lawsuit stated Norgard's family hoped the civil trial would provide information to cause the state attorney’s office to reconsider its decision and pursue a murder charge against Elledias.
“During this entire time he could have simply driven away but then, we will argue, he would not have had a chance to shoot somebody; and that is what he wanted to do,” a family statement read at the time of the lawsuit filing.
Norgard’s family had hoped to prove Elledias initiated the incident by blocking him from passing him, then stopping when he stopped and inviting him over, according to the statement.
The lawsuit complaint also pointed out Elledias and his wife were the only two witnesses to the shooting other than Norgard.
This turned out not to be true, according to court records.
Reasonable fear of imminent death
Evidence produced in the case showed that a witness heading in the opposite direction of Norgard and Elledias saw Norgard jump out of his vehicle and approach Elledias' truck. The witness then pulled over to see what was transpiring, records show.
The witness observed Norgard reach into the truck as if he was attempting to grab someone, and then he saw the driver try to push Norgard away. After that, Norgard lunged again, only to be pushed back and shot twice. Fearing for his own safety, the witness drove away and called 911.
A postmortem toxicology report showed Norgard’s blood-alcohol level was .188, which is over the legal limit of 0.08.
According to Florida Law, in civil proceedings, the determination of whether a defendant is entitled to Stand Your Ground immunity can be made at pretrial evidentiary hearings. The defendant must prove that the immunity is attached by a preponderance of the evidence. In this case, a pretrial evidentiary hearing on the issue of immunity was conducted on Sept. 17, 2021.
On Oct. 29, the court ruled that, when weighing the evidence, the testimonies of the eyewitness, Elledias, and his wife were credible, consistent and collaborative. In addition, evidence was produced that suggested Norgard had a reputation in the community for having a temper. The court believed that his temper worsening under the influence of alcohol could reasonably explain his aggressive behavior on the night of the shooting.
According to the judge, Elledias had reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm to himself and his wife at the time he used defensive force that caused the death of Norgard.
The perp can’t harm anyone else. Ecstatically happy ending.
Might have normally been a nice guy. Some people just shouldn’t drink.
Yes, that was happy ending.
But I bet he went on to hurt someone else, if not deliberately, then accidentally.
It isn’t your job to prevent that, but I would have been on your side if you shot him.
The gene pool needs chlorine.
One fewer Johnny Cash fan.
Kind of like my daughter's ex-husband. He was a very nice guy, but a very nasty, abusive drunk.
I am sure that this guy was in lots of other fights etc... But actually shooting him still would have been terrible. This guy was probably one of the most fearsome and great soldiers that the army ever had. This was right after we got out of Vietnam so who knows what he experienced over there. But he was playing a dangerous game that night and I am certain that alcohol was clouding his judgment as well.
When I got back to the Dominoes and described what had just happened my manager said that he would have “kicked the guys ass”. He weighed about the same as I did at that time around a 140 pounds. This guy was twice our weight and at least a foot taller. It was comical to hear him blustering like a banty chicken rooster.
Killing is terrible thing for the killer, given that he is a normal human being, not mentally ill or desensitized by his experience or environment (which is a terrible thing itself!).
But that is what firearms are all about.
Have no fear of any man
No matter what his size.
When danger threatens call on me,
And I will Equalize.
Colt Firearms
The outcome of the lawsuit is probably best case. (That there even was a lawsuit is regrettable.) I am not defending Norgard’s actions, nor did I intend to vilify his target, I just find the death of a young man, and one whose (possibly misguided) parents loved him regrettable. I find the entire episode regrettable.
Mr. Norgard was not “blind drunk”, his blood alcohol level was 0.188. Until fairly recently the standard for “drunk driving” was 0.150. Nowadays 0.08, about half of what Mr. Norgard had. One beer results in a blood alcohol level of around 0.05. A blood alcohol level of 0.188 is about what would result from four beers in two hours.
It’s an obvious case of “he needed killin’”.
Actually, .188 is pretty darned drunk. Folks can be worse, but that’ll do it. But I didn’t mention BAC.
From the article:
“In addition, evidence was produced that suggested Norgard had a reputation in the community for having a temper.”
If you have a “reputation in the community” for having a temper, and you actually engage in assault, you likely have committed assault before.
It’s regrettable that you’re a drunken, mean, POS who assaults others.
It’s not regrettable if you’re killed. Your death is a small improvement to net world human happiness.
“The shooter was the victim of the now deceased drunk dude’s road rage.”
Exactly. A drunk POS who was a danger to everyone on the road or sidewalk attacked an armed man and got properly zotted.
A happy ending if you ask me because this POS drunk driver won’t be drunk driving anymore.
Typical fake news/manipulation by the msm...
Probably 80% of the serfs will read ONLY the headline and assume an evil terrorist gun owner got away with murder...
And yet the paper decided to print the shooters (victim) name.
Norgard’s death was regrettable, but his death wasn’t the price for his stupidity (e.g., driving with an alcohol content of 0.118, turning and stopping his car in front of the truck, getting out of his car, yelling at the truck driver)
Norgard’s death was the price for his actions that reasonably constituted an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the couple in the truck.
Knowing the rest of the image on that shirt, kinda fitting for a guy with anger issues, eh?
I bin a lot drunker than 0.188. Admittedly, I didn’t pick fights.
[snip] Marsy's Law can be used by public institutions to prevent the disclosure of information or records that could be used to locate or harass a victim or a victim's family... Norgard's attorney, Christopher Brown, hired an investigator who spent months poring through evidence, talking to people and chasing down leads to learn the identity of the shooter: Israel Elledias... "During this entire time he could have simply driven away but then, we will argue, he would not have had a chance to shoot somebody; and that is what he wanted to do," a family statement read at the time of the lawsuit filing... The lawsuit complaint also pointed out Elledias and his wife were the only two witnesses to the shooting other than Norgard. This turned out not to be true, according to court records... A postmortem toxicology report showed Norgard's blood-alcohol level was .188, which is over the legal limit of 0.08. [/snip]
Looks like an attitudinal problem that was ultimately corrected.
As well you may have been. I’ve personally heard of folks who blew in excess of .3, or even .4 (although most folks who aren’t long-term alcoholics are at significant of death at those levels). But .188 certainly makes one drunk. And if one is already known for being belligerent, any drunk is bad drunk.
Society is better of when a mean drunk dies. Happy ending. Sad that he was a mean drunk. Not at all sad that he’s gone.
That was his mistake, the warning shot and claiming self defense. He made it easy for the prosecution. He should have never claimed self defense in front of a jury in conjunction with firing a warning shot. It proved he was not in fear for his life when he fired.
If he hadn't fired the warning shot and just shot his attacker directly to stop the threat, plus keeping his mouth shut he most likely would be free.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.