What if I told you that a man shoots his neighbor's son, gets away with it, claiming a ridiculous legal defense in Florida? [00:00:15] Put up the picture for a mass. This is an update to a story. Florida a murder charge against a 79 year old Edward Drew Zalewski was dropped Friday after he successfully argued that he shot [00:00:31] his neighbor's adult son in self-defense. Let me give you a reminder of what happened. The suspect was arrested in September 2023 after confronting a 42 year old Brian Ford, who was on Edward's side of a fence. [00:00:53] He was trimming tree limbs along the two man's property line And a call to 911. The wife of Drew Zalewski said her husband, quote, [00:01:11] just meant to scare him, end quote, when confronting Ford with a firearm. That's according to court documents. Ford, who was with his eight year old son, reacted aggressively. [00:01:27] Investigators concluded the two men exchanged words. And Ford reportedly threatened the defendant with a chainsaw, prompting Edward Drew Zalewski to draw the firearm. [00:01:46] Edward told police he warned Ford and told him, quote, to get off his property. And Brian said something to the effect of mind your business, followed by profanity. [00:02:01] The De Leon, Florida resident, said he then aimed his gun at Ford, who allegedly responded, quote, you are pointing a gun at me. [00:02:19] Are you going to shoot me? And move closer. Ford remained on Edward Drew Zalewski's property, inching closer until the neighbor told him, [00:02:36] stop right now or I'll shoot. End quote. ABC news reported that Edward told investigators Ford continued to advance even after the older man dry fired [00:02:52] his revolver on an empty chamber. Quote he said his firearm holds six rounds in the cylinder, but he keeps the first two empty for safety reasons. [00:03:10] He stated Brian heard the gun click and continued to advance towards him, so he pulled the trigger a second time. He advised this time the firearm went off and he shot Brian. [00:03:28] The authorities wrote to the court in 2023. Now I'm going to give you the defense in just a moment to properly contextualize what's happening. You have an individual with a gun who is threatening to kill someone [00:03:47] because they have the audacity to trim tree limbs. That's what this is about. Cause and effect is important. You cannot argue the effect and not analyze the cause. [00:04:07] What is the cause? Pettiness. What is the cause? A lack of value for human life. I value the life of everyone involved, more so than I would ever value the issue that we're arguing about. [00:04:27] He was charged with second degree murder in his defense. Edward cited his age, physical condition, and the size difference between him and Ford. [00:04:44] Ford's son turned out to be a key witness, telling police his father had threatened the elderly man. The court determined prosecutors did not provide convincing evidence that Edward Drew. [00:04:59] Zalewski was not entitled to immunity on the basis of the Stand Your Ground law, Which says people faced with threats to their safety are not only required to retreat before, are not required to retreat before responding with force [00:05:17] to a threat to their safety. The ruling has reignited a debate over the controversial law, which critics argue can lead to unjust outcomes in cases involving murky circumstances. [00:05:32] Such laws have been linked to increased homicide rates, so I want to go back to the original defense. The original defense is not simply a stand your ground defense. The original defense is stand your ground [00:05:48] contextualized through these other factors that aren't supposed to be highlighted, such as age, frailty, the inability, or lack of capacity to fight. [00:06:05] These are not supposed to be part of it. Here's why. Because it creates an inequitable dynamic in the law. Because this would suggest that under no circumstances could a particular individual [00:06:20] ever be able to argue that what you did, sir, was actually murder, because you have all these other frailties that the other individual does not have. Meaning there's inequity in the law itself if it is applied successfully. [00:06:39] In your defense, that was one of the main arguments against Stand your Ground prior that a young black male who's healthy and athletic could never utilize this type of argument against an older individual [00:06:55] if the roles were reversed. And now you have an actual court case that has allowed this kind of defense to be cross contextualized in the defense of stand your ground as a reason for immunity. [00:07:12] What else do we have? In a very ironic way. The authorities all believed that this man committed murder initially. The prosecutor charges the police arrest. There's an actual indictment. And then the argument [00:07:29] before members of a jury, based on the statutory language of the law, creates an atmosphere that lets them go. What's really happening policy is allowing murder. That's what's happening. Policy is allowing murder. [00:07:46] Understand the cause and correlation, where you have these ridiculous laws that allow for, castle doctrine interpretation or stand your ground interpretation. These states also have increased homicides with these policies enacted, [00:08:05] that that's no coincidence being when it comes down to it, it's is simply inhumane to ever think that a neighbor is dead because of the trimming of tree limbs on a particular property line. What say you? I hear you, doc. [00:08:21] I have a different take on this story, just based on the limited evidence that I was able to, you know, understand from the story. I think that, yes, the stand Your Ground law is problematic in some ways. But in this particular story, there also has to be some recourse that [00:08:39] a man can take when he's being threatened on his own property by a neighbor and the man who was killed, his own son, testified basically against him saying that he was threatening the elderly man. He threatened somebody on your own property. [00:08:54] That's at your own risk. You do so while holding a chainsaw. That's at your own further risk. And the man, Kozlowski, who killed Ford, warned him he was going to shoot. Fired an empty round first. [00:09:10] Fired a second empty round and the guy kept approaching him. Supposedly, it was what the trial seems to have come forward with and said, are you going to shoot me? Is cussing at him and threatening him worse? At some point, when are you supposed to be able to protect yourself [00:09:28] from a threat on your own property? Ben, I'm glad you brought that up because you had a different point of view when someone else went to a property and was the aggressor, who was the aggressor in this story? [00:09:46] I mean, initially it sounds like Kozlowski was the aggressor of. That is correct. Yes. But when you're when it's on your own property, you have the right to ask them to leave. If they don't leave, you have the right to continue to ask them to leave. [00:10:02] And if they become threatening and if they're holding a chainsaw, which is a weapon that can easily murder somebody at some point you are defending yourself. You have the right in 11 states to commit that crime and get away with it. Do you understand how policy contextualized the outcome of this? [00:10:18] Because trespassing does not equate to your ability or capacity to murder somebody. It doesn't. 11 states in this country will allow you to kill somebody and have immunity based upon a castle doctrine, like stand your ground or permeation of that doctrine. [00:10:35] But once again, we're back to a policy dynamic. Because, remember, a grand jury agreed this was murder. Police agreed this was murder. The Da agreed. This was murder. And when you argue the facts before a jury with the statutory language of stand your ground, the prosecutor has to prove another element outside of the traditional element [00:10:56] that would have been allowed prior to the policy being passed. So my point to you is this. And I understand your your disagreement. You're wrong. And let me tell you why you're wrong. You don't get to be the aggressor and threaten to kill somebody over [00:11:11] something that's not even a misdemeanor, but an ordinance violation. And because you threaten that individual, that individual then threatens you back, which now you have a mutual combat situation and you decide to use your gun to kill them, it doesn't matter that the, that the first two shots did not shoot. [00:11:31] We're taking at face value what the man is saying. We don't know if those first two shots were intentional to kill or not. I know that if you did this in Georgia, those first two shots are just as customary as if you tried to kill somebody. The only contextualization would be if I believed your story, rather than the fact [00:11:48] that you did pull the trigger twice, and that would of any objective observer would say, well, you just tried to kill a man with two bullets, but you got him on the third one. Do you understand that? Like, once you pull the trigger, brother, you pull the trigger. [00:12:04] I mean, I think that's the case. Dependent? Yes. Unless you can prove that you always did keep two chambers empty for warning and for safety reasons. I think. Yes. How would you prove that? That is very hard to prove, but it's very hard to prove. So that's a fair point for sure. [00:12:19] But also, at what point if somebody, God forbid, was on your property dock and had a chainsaw and was coming at you and cussing and you said, get off my damn property now, or I will shoot you, and they said, you're going to shoot me and got closer to you. At what point are you allowed to interpret that as a threat? [00:12:36] Once again, you leave out the element that started it. You don't get to be the aggressor and then cite a policy dynamic. What what do you think Kyle Rittenhouse was about? [00:12:53] Kyle Rittenhouse was an aggressor. He was an agitator who was then allowed, based on policy, to get away with shooting individuals that he was an aggressor against and being in illegal possession of a firearm at that. [00:13:13] Once again, it's trespassing. Ben. Ben. Being. It's trespassing. It's a trespassing crime. Call the police. It's a trespassing crime. Rittenhouse wasn't on his own property, but the man's own son testified against his own father, saying he was threatening the elderly man. He was. [00:13:28] He was an eight year old child who admitted that his father did utilize aggressive language back at the neighbor who came to him with a gun. I promise you, if somebody come to me with a gun, they're going to get aggressive words also guaranteed. So the eight year old testified to the truth once again. [00:13:45] The eight year old also testified that the neighbor was in fact the aggressor, that his father was simply trimming, trimming limbs, that his father was not the aggressor. See, these things are to be contextualized properly, dear brother, you can't dismiss them when once again, [00:14:02] in any other jurisdiction without the ridiculous stand your ground contextualization in Florida, this man would have been, in fact, not only arrested, not only indicted, but also convicted by a jury. Given the statutory dynamics, the only thing that made this different [00:14:17] is because of the Stand Your Ground law, which, by the way, is echoed by the prosecutor that it is the stand your ground policy passed by conservatives that made this outcome different than what the outcome would have been. So, Ben, what's the problem with that? Yeah. No, I mean, you make a good point for sure. [00:14:34] And I don't think fatal force needed to be used. I'm just saying we weren't there. And this is on someone's property, which I think makes it a little bit. It's on a property line. - It's on a property. - Line on his side. On his side. - It's on a property line. - So let's just say if. Somebody came at you with a gun, they're going to get harsh words. [00:14:52] If I'm on somebody's property and they come at me with a gun, I'm getting off that property as soon as possible and not giving them. - Harsh. - Well, okay. Well, that's why many most states require that if something like that happens, you have a duty to retreat first. Do you understand why it's different in Florida? [00:15:07] Like most states will say, you have you have an actual duty to retreat if you feel as if there's a danger, only because that law requires that you care about the life of the other person. So you have this duty to retreat, which is eliminated in the Florida statute under stand your ground. [00:15:23] Totally. And we can agree on this. People in Florida are aware of Florida's crazy laws. And so you have to be operating your life under the laws of the state in which you live. And so you have to take extra precautions to not fall victim to. Well, that's that's. An assumption not known in the facts that he was aware of the statutory elements [00:15:41] of the Stand Your Ground law. I'm not aware of all of the elements until I have to actually research it. Look at element one, element two, element three. When it comes to a property line dispute in A in a subjective way, the man may not have known Ben that he was actually violating a property law. [00:15:58] Typically you get 2 to 4ft of an easement when it comes to property lines, and that's so that the government can come in and maneuver as they choose to within 2 to 4ft. So you may have had an easement issue. Hell, this may not even technically have been trespassing, brother. [00:16:14] Fair enough. Yeah. - Fair enough. - All right. I like the rigorous debate, though I. I can appreciate it any day.