Florida Reform too late for Father; 20 Years for Warning Shot

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 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 mistakes 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  hid anyone, just a wall.   The young man left.   He thought his  problems was solved.   Then he made a crutial 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 neighbors 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.

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

Source: http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2014/10/florida-reform-too-late-for-father-20.html