If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Apparently, waving your arms in the direction of a guy who nearly runs you over is grounds for getting shot under the "Stand your ground" law in Arizona   (cnn.com) divider line 751
    More: Scary, emergency vehicle lighting, Laurie Levenson, drive-through, American Life, stand your ground, deadly force, martin case, Wesson  
•       •       •

9356 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Apr 2012 at 11:15 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



751 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-30 12:01:23 AM

The 4chan Psychiatrist: One thing I learned, back when I was a medical student and was working in the Office of the Medical Examiner, is that news articles regarding murder are awfully reported and the events described within it should be taken with a grain of salt.

We'd have homicides come in, review the crime scene photos, do the autopsy, the homicide detectives working the case observing the whole process, and then I'd go home and read the story online later that evening and it wouldn't even be remotely close to what the crime scene photos showed.


It also seems unbelievable that there is no video of this from security cameras.
 
2012-04-30 12:01:27 AM

SkinnyHead: I'm not talking about use of deadly force on a "whim." People can claim self defense based on perceived danger.


I feel imperiled by your idiocy. You see me coming, you better duck.
 
2012-04-30 12:01:57 AM

gameshowhost: Boy, removing a reasonable duty to retreat sure has worked out splendidly.


While I think this and the Florida case are examples of how bad these laws can be, I would have to say that I have NO "duty" to retreat if my life is in danger.

If the dead kid had no ranged weapon, I see no claim of "self defense" on the part of the shooter, but I'm sorry, a "duty" to retreat is just bullshiat.
 
2012-04-30 12:02:33 AM
This story kind of freaks me out because I've slapped a few car hoods and told the driver to watch where he's farking going in my time. Almost getting run over pisses me off, but not so much that I'd kill someone, or -- I would think -- not so much that I should be killed.
 
2012-04-30 12:04:16 AM

Bloody William: People should be legally allowed to defend themselves. They shouldn't be legally allowed to engaged in bullshiat vigilante fantasies and use lethal force on every stranger who walks by them on the street. That's all these "Make my Day/Stand your Ground" laws are. Ways for the insecure to indulge in their fantasies about being heroes.


I haven't read the various SYG bills, but my understanding is they only stipulate that there is no obligation to retreat before defending yourself. They don't reduce or remove the standard for "necessary reasonable force" to stop an attacker. Retreat or no, use of force must be justified. I don't think these laws affect that requirement in any way.
 
2012-04-30 12:04:56 AM

skepticultist: This story kind of freaks me out because I've slapped a few car hoods and told the driver to watch where he's farking going in my time. Almost getting run over pisses me off, but not so much that I'd kill someone, or -- I would think -- not so much that I should be killed.


Welcome to Tea Party America- where fear and stupidity are allowed not only to own lethal weapons, but use them whenever they please.

/although if you're not brown, you'll probably be okay
 
2012-04-30 12:08:35 AM

doglover: We can easily move out of the way of someone or give them our wallet or even just run away as it please us.


The common law imposed no duty for anyone to hand over a wallet. It did impose the duty to make reasonable efforts to avoid confrontation, and short of that, to calculate force to reasonably respond to the actual threat posed to you. Mugger pointing a gun at you at point blank range? You almost certainly have a right to use deadly force, because you yourself are threatened with imminent, unavoidable deadly force. Black kid bothering you by walking through your neighborhood while black? Even if you hunt him down, unjustifiably harass him, and start to get your ass kicked, you're just not going to have the right to use deadly force, period.

Why do you suppose George didn't try to shoot Trayvon in the leg, or fire off a warning shot to try to scare him away?

Because he knew he didn't have to.
 
2012-04-30 12:08:45 AM
He told police he had no choice but to shoot. He said he couldn't drive away from Adkins because the dog was in the way and he "thought he had no other options,"

While the shooter said he did not believe Adkins would have killed him and his fiancée had he not fired,


what a farking pussy
 
2012-04-30 12:09:13 AM

aelat: Retreat or no, use of force must be justified.


Exactly.

As it always has been. It's like that old Clint Eastwood movie where he's in the barber's chair and the guy tries to draw on him. That's reasonable to shoot someone then. He's in the process of killing you, thus he can be killed.

But if he had killed the kid in Dirty Harry, that would NOT have been reasonable.


The real travesty here is that the families of the victims are upset at the killers as opposed to the people who let them walk, ie the DAs who are the real societal problem.
 
2012-04-30 12:09:54 AM

skepticultist: This story kind of freaks me out because I've slapped a few car hoods and told the driver to watch where he's farking going in my time. Almost getting run over pisses me off, but not so much that I'd kill someone, or -- I would think -- not so much that I should be killed.


Man, last fall I was leaving work for lunch, and I almost hit a dude on a motorcycle, there was a line of trees at the corner that blocked my view, and I just missed seeing the guy. No big deal. I ended up behind him at the next stoplight, unrolled my window and apologized. The guy of course handled it well, telling me to fark off, pull my head out of my ass, and all kinds of stuff. He also waved his hand in the air. Just to think, I could have killed him right there, and it would have all been good.

Instead, I went on with my day and just lived with the fact that some people can't accept a 'My bad' without still insisting on biatching you out...
 
2012-04-30 12:10:06 AM

aelat: Bloody William: People should be legally allowed to defend themselves. They shouldn't be legally allowed to engaged in bullshiat vigilante fantasies and use lethal force on every stranger who walks by them on the street. That's all these "Make my Day/Stand your Ground" laws are. Ways for the insecure to indulge in their fantasies about being heroes.

I haven't read the various SYG bills, but my understanding is they only stipulate that there is no obligation to retreat before defending yourself. They don't reduce or remove the standard for "necessary reasonable force" to stop an attacker. Retreat or no, use of force must be justified. I don't think these laws affect that requirement in any way.


And you'd be right; they only extend the castle doctrine to other places where you have a legal right to be.
 
2012-04-30 12:10:27 AM

skepticultist: This story kind of freaks me out because I've slapped a few car hoods and told the driver to watch where he's farking going in my time. Almost getting run over pisses me off, but not so much that I'd kill someone, or -- I would think -- not so much that I should be killed.


this

Every time I cross the street in front of my house, I think, I could carry a baseball bat. Would have been shot years ago.
On the other hand, I am going to start carrying my keys in my hand, if my keys scratch their car, then they were driving illegally. If they get out of the car, I will have to kill them. Road rage is illiegal and is clearly a case of self defense.
 
2012-04-30 12:12:13 AM
WHAT THE MOTHERfark IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE?

In Arizona, where the Adkins family lives, a similar law was enacted in 2006, tacked on to another gun bill after a gun rights lobbyist promoted it for 20 seconds in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Called "Make my Day," it says people have no duty to retreat before using deadly force to protect themselves anywhere they have the legal right to be.
 
2012-04-30 12:12:17 AM
So many deep thoughts in this thread.
 
2012-04-30 12:12:22 AM

doglover: The real travesty here is that the families of the victims are upset at the killers as opposed to the people who let them walk, ie the DAs who are the real societal problem.


Ding ding ding

/F*cking hate prosecutors
 
2012-04-30 12:12:47 AM

Salt Lick Steady: aelat: Bloody William: People should be legally allowed to defend themselves. They shouldn't be legally allowed to engaged in bullshiat vigilante fantasies and use lethal force on every stranger who walks by them on the street. That's all these "Make my Day/Stand your Ground" laws are. Ways for the insecure to indulge in their fantasies about being heroes.

I haven't read the various SYG bills, but my understanding is they only stipulate that there is no obligation to retreat before defending yourself. They don't reduce or remove the standard for "necessary reasonable force" to stop an attacker. Retreat or no, use of force must be justified. I don't think these laws affect that requirement in any way.

And you'd be right; they only extend the castle doctrine to other places where you have a legal right to be.


which makes it even creepier that the shooters werent arrested.
Self defense is a DEFENSE which is used at trial. Since when does the cop decide to not arrest a shooter??

Plus, in all of these cases, if it were a 20yo black guy shooting a rich white girl, would the story be different???
 
2012-04-30 12:12:59 AM

Abzzstain: SkinnyHead: He and his girlfriend told police that the assailant had a bat or similar type weapon.

Which was never found, even though it should have been lying right there in the drive-thru after the killer shot him. Maybe the dog hid the evidence. Or maybe there was never a weapon and the guy was just waving his arms, and the killer and his girlfriend lied.

Why are so many people defending killers all the sudden?


They want to be able to kill somebody someday and get away with it.

Welcome to the New America (tm) where you can be MORE worried about running over a dog than killing a man, and people will actually think that sounds not only reasonable, but sensible.

Oh, and this douchebag said he was NEVER WORRIED ABOUT BEING KILLED. While the shooter said he did not believe Adkins would have killed him and his fiancée had he not fired, he also said he feared Adkins was trying to hurt him. Just about being "hurt".

So anyone up there defending this freak because he felt "threatened"? Yeah, he was only worried this guy "might" be "trying" to hurt him. Even Zimmerman had a better claim than that. This asshole just wanted to kill somebody and get away with it. This is what you've stooped to defending. Someone who flat admits he wasn't worried about being killed.
 
2012-04-30 12:13:30 AM

bugontherug: Why do you suppose George didn't try to shoot Trayvon in the leg, or fire off a warning shot to try to scare him away?

Because he knew he didn't have to.




Well, In AZ, pre-'Make My Day' law, you couldn't 'aim for the leg', with the reasoning being that if you had time to stop and aim, then you had time to flee to safety. You were just supposed to shoot because you truly had no other choice. Not sure how this changed with the new law, but that is a problem with the 'Why not just shoot them in the leg?' question.

/Not saying that I agree with the result of either of these cases, just putting things in perspective here.
 
2012-04-30 12:13:54 AM
He said witnesses at the scene told him that Adkins "went beserk" on his son, raising his hands and yelling: "What the hell, you almost hit me" and to "watch where the f*** you're going."

again, what a god damned, unmitigated, worthless farking pussy of a human, this shooter.
 
2012-04-30 12:14:13 AM

Salt Lick Steady: doglover: The real travesty here is that the families of the victims are upset at the killers as opposed to the people who let them walk, ie the DAs who are the real societal problem.

Ding ding ding

/F*cking hate prosecutors


Yeah. Totally. There's just no reason for families to be angry at people who kill their members at all.
 
2012-04-30 12:14:36 AM

bugontherug: Why do you suppose George didn't try to shoot Trayvon in the leg, or fire off a warning shot to try to scare him away?

Because he knew he didn't have to. Treyvon was on top of him trying to crack his head open like an egg.


But don't let facts get in the way of your fantasies of serial killers hopping through the streets emptying magazine after magazine into total strangers while the police just stand by and shake their heads saying in a heavy Irish accent "Oh, you scamp, you!"


Even with all the Stand Your Ground legislation, murders like this one are so rare they make national headlines. They can't even find one per month. If it was a one in a million chance, there would be at least 300.
 
2012-04-30 12:16:12 AM
I'm not necessarily against stand your ground laws, or at least their original intent, because in some states (like CT) you have a ridiculous burden of proof for self-defense, even armed home intrusion. That said, there needs to be more clarity to them- following someone is not standing your ground. The attacker being unarmed should create a higher burden of proof (and yes, there are situations like that; ex:. the 110lb. woman being attacked by a 280lb. man would be one).

In this particular case (and based solely on the facts from the article) this does not seem to be self defense. The shooter was inside a car, and at worst, the victim was armed with a bat (which seems not to exist). He should have rolled up his damn window, if the victim attacked the car or broke the window, at least it would present a credible threat. This does not seem to be the case.

I guess the biggest problem I have is the use of self-defense from harm being conflated with self-defense from fear.

/also, why does Arizona have this law? Most of those western states have well enumerated defense laws that spell out the circumstances detailing justifiable homicide (Colorado is probably the best). On top of that, it is one of the most gun-friendly states I've ever been to, so I feel like this is an unnecessary redundancy that will only weaken self-defense laws in the future due to misuse.

//Pro-self defense, Pro-2nd Amendment, Pro-responsible gun ownership (including mandatory training and proficiency classes).
 
2012-04-30 12:16:33 AM

doglover: bugontherug: Why do you suppose George didn't try to shoot Trayvon in the leg, or fire off a warning shot to try to scare him away?

Because he knew he didn't have to. Treyvon was on top of him trying to crack his head open like an egg.


debunktionjunction.net
 
2012-04-30 12:17:00 AM
Hm, according to the comments under the article, the shooter's name is Cordell Jude. He went to his baby mama's (fiancee's) shower today and they have a Facebook page.

Wonder if Anonymous knows about this.
 
2012-04-30 12:17:08 AM

bugontherug: Why do you suppose George didn't try to shoot Trayvon in the leg, or fire off a warning shot to try to scare him away?

Because he knew he didn't have to.


Or maybe he was a paranoid asshole with no gun skills? And really, warning shot? He was chasing the kid after the cops told him not to, this isn't the type of person who would think of firing a warning shot.

Which you generally never do anyway, even if you're in legit danger.
 
2012-04-30 12:17:30 AM

Gyrfalcon: So anyone up there defending this freak because he felt "threatened"? Yeah, he was only worried this guy "might" be "trying" to hurt him. Even Zimmerman had a better claim than that. This asshole just wanted to kill somebody and get away with it. This is what you've stooped to defending. Someone who flat admits he wasn't worried about being killed.


Not to defend Deep Thinker or anything, but what's your line in the sand? Not getting killed, but raped? Losing an eye, but living? Is hospitalization with a pronounced limp a-ok?
 
2012-04-30 12:18:05 AM
While the shooter said he did not believe Adkins would have killed him and his fiancée had he not fired, he also said he feared Adkins was trying to hurt him.

You, sir, are a farking murderer.
 
2012-04-30 12:18:18 AM

NINDroog: /also, why does Arizona have this law?


Because it is populated by mouth breathing retards. See: Arpio, Joe and Brewer, Janet
 
2012-04-30 12:19:05 AM

Ambivalence: seriously, who carries a gun in SWEATPANTS?


cache.deadspin.com
 
2012-04-30 12:19:44 AM
It is scary when you can legally get shot for yelling at some asshole who almost ran over you. It is even scarier to think that in some states people who are minding their own business before they reacted to what some asshole was doing to them can get legally be shot by said asshole.
 
2012-04-30 12:21:15 AM

Lenny_da_Hog: Obvious problem with these laws: Psychos.

Too many people buy guns with the fantasy of killing someone. They can't wait until that one day someone does something that will allow them to kill with impunity. They want the feeling of power and judgment.

Watch the audience during gun show presentations. You can always spot them: They're the ones who look like they're watching a peep show.

These laws are catering to those idiots.


Well, that's one problem.

Another problem, the people who nervously go through life with a sense of imminent threat, imagining thugs will be busting through their door any minute now to violate their women and pillage their stuff. Or attacking them in drive-thrus with invisible baseball bats, or on the sidewalk with skittles, apparently.

Maybe they've been victims themselves, maybe not. Either way they think they're living in the Robocop movie's world, they're frightened, they've replayed their scenarios in their heads dozens of times, and they're armed.

They've let themselves get crazy enough with fear that they're not capable of percieving any difference between an attacker and a guy waving his arms.
 
2012-04-30 12:23:19 AM

calm like a bomb: doglover: bugontherug: Why do you suppose George didn't try to shoot Trayvon in the leg, or fire off a warning shot to try to scare him away?

Because he knew he didn't have to. Treyvon was on top of him trying to crack his head open like an egg.

[debunktionjunction.net image 500x271]


Um, well every piece of evidence in the case that's thus far been released as exhibit A. For exhibit B, the details which will be released later.
 
2012-04-30 12:23:46 AM

bugontherug: Salt Lick Steady: doglover: The real travesty here is that the families of the victims are upset at the killers as opposed to the people who let them walk, ie the DAs who are the real societal problem.

Ding ding ding

/F*cking hate prosecutors

Yeah. Totally. There's just no reason for families to be angry at people who kill their members at all.


Dude, I'm not saying that the families shouldn't be angry at the shooters. I'm saying that it's not the laws that are the problem; it's the failure of the prosecutors to pursue freaking prosecution. They'd rather go after the cut-and-dry possession of mj cases. They're lazy bastards who hide behind the laws to justify unjustifiable discretionary decisions.
 
2012-04-30 12:24:29 AM
I think the real important question on whether or not people will agree with the shooter's stand your ground claim is "was the victim black?"
 
2012-04-30 12:24:44 AM

Mikey1969: Well, In AZ, pre-'Make My Day' law, you couldn't 'aim for the leg', with the reasoning being that if you had time to stop and aim, then you had time to flee to safety. You were just supposed to shoot because you truly had no other choice. Not sure how this changed with the new law, but that is a problem with the 'Why not just shoot them in the leg?' question.


1) George was on his back, with Trayvon on top of him. The common duty to avoid confrontation would have been vitiated in that case. But his duty to respond with reasonable force would not have been.

2) Your hypothetical doesn't really give us enough facts to discern whether or not the common law duty to avoid confrontation would have been triggered. If a guy is 50 feet away is walking toward you with a baseball bat saying "i'm gonna beat you raw," and you're in your car on an empty street, it is totally unreasonable to shoot the aggressor in the leg, because it is in no way necessary. Drive the f*ck away and call the police. You've got plenty of time.

If, by contrast, you're in the middle of the forest, with transportation miles away, and the dude walking toward you with the baseball bat may or may not be a faster runner than you, shooting him in the leg is definitely more reasonable. If you're a record breaking cross country runner, you should probably run. If you're overweight, and he's physically fit, you should probably shoot. The point is, you should act reasonably.

If in fact you can find an actual case in which someone was prosecuted for shooting someone in the leg under circumstances where they really didn't have the option to retreat, I'd love to read it. I bet the facts aren't as clear cut as you imagine.
 
2012-04-30 12:25:09 AM

doglover: I disagree. There's no reason a citizen of a free nation should move so much as an inch out of their way in the face of an actual aggressor.


Because you are a grown up now, not on a school yard? Issues can be resolved without more aggression?
 
2012-04-30 12:25:24 AM

SkinnyHead: doglover: Where's the Black Panthers to put a bounty on this guy?

Seeing as how the shooter is black, I don't think that's going to happen.


oh then problem solved. shooter is guilty guilty guilty
 
2012-04-30 12:25:36 AM

doglover: calm like a bomb: doglover: bugontherug: Why do you suppose George didn't try to shoot Trayvon in the leg, or fire off a warning shot to try to scare him away?

Because he knew he didn't have to. Treyvon was on top of him trying to crack his head open like an egg.

[debunktionjunction.net image 500x271]

Um, well every piece of evidence in the case that's thus far been released as exhibit A. For exhibit B, the details which will be released later.


Yeah. No.
 
2012-04-30 12:26:12 AM

bugontherug: George was on his back, with Trayvon on top of him.


This is what you believe.
 
2012-04-30 12:26:59 AM
Most of the civilians who go out in public armed with a gun must pants-pissing cowards. I can't think of any other type of person who would shoot retards and teenagers and then claim they were "afraid for their life."
 
2012-04-30 12:27:53 AM

doglover: MaudlinMutantMollusk: So, he couldn't drive away because he might hit the dog, but killing another human was an acceptable alternative?

Well, the dog wasn't threatening anyone. You can't run over a child to get away from the father. You can't run over a pet to get away from the owner. It just doesn't work that way.

However, legally, you CAN shoot down a lunatic swinging a pipe or bat at you.

Where's the Black Panthers to put a bounty on this guy?


You absolutely CAN run over an animal. I love dogs as much as the next guy, but if a dog is in the road and you have a need to drive where the dog is, then the dog dies and somebody should be following leash laws, as sad as it is. Not only can you run over an animal to escape a deadly or dangerous situation, but you can run over a dog because you simply feel like not hitting the breaks. With the exception of deliberate and unnecessary malicious actions that hurt animals, the vast majority of the time they are treated by the law as mere property.

Also, a motherfarking 3 foot lead pipe doesn't disappear from a crime scene.
 
2012-04-30 12:28:25 AM

NewportBarGuy: SkinnyHead: He said he couldn't drive away from Adkins because the dog was in the way and he "thought he had no other options," according to the police report.

Well then it's not a "stand your ground" case, is it?

I'm sorry we made fun of you :(

[i47.tinypic.com image 532x501]


i1.kym-cdn.com
 
2012-04-30 12:28:41 AM

calm like a bomb: Treyvon was on top of him trying to crack his head open like an egg.


According to Zimmerman, Trayvon was wrestling with him for his gun. Obviously, if we believe Zimmerman's account, Zimmerman was physically stronger than Trayvon, because he overpowered Trayvon to get the gun pointed at his chest. He could just as easily have pointed the gun at his leg.
 
2012-04-30 12:29:12 AM

Salt Lick Steady: bugontherug: Why do you suppose George didn't try to shoot Trayvon in the leg, or fire off a warning shot to try to scare him away?

Because he knew he didn't have to.

Or maybe he was a paranoid asshole with no gun skills? And really, warning shot? He was chasing the kid after the cops told him not to, this isn't the type of person who would think of firing a warning shot.

Which you generally never do anyway, even if you're in legit danger.


Apparently gun trainers teach new gun owners to shoot to kill. This avoids the potential legal issues that might come from trying to reconcile two sides of a story in court. I learned this from a friend who was getting the required training to buy a gun in MA.

Of course its an easier sell if you kill a guy who breaks into your house. When its already established that you followed the guy and approached him, I'm not sure the fact that he's dead and can't tell his side of the story plays well in your favor. Then again, people are generally stupid.
 
2012-04-30 12:29:27 AM

falcon176: oh then problem solved. shooter is guilty guilty guilty


he's guilty as fark, I don't care if he's a German Shepherd.
 
2012-04-30 12:30:03 AM

falcon176: SkinnyHead: doglover: Where's the Black Panthers to put a bounty on this guy?

Seeing as how the shooter is black, I don't think that's going to happen.

oh then problem solved. shooter is guilty guilty guilty


I know, and his fiance is named AllAccess Ronisha (Cold Nisha'Cold Piece).

That just smacks of the worst kind of guilt.
 
2012-04-30 12:30:23 AM
"Daniel Adkins Jr. walked past Taco Bell's drive-thru just as a 22-year-old man pulled around in his SUV..."

"He said he couldn't drive away from Adkins because the dog was in the way..."

One of these things runs over the other on a regular basis. It would take an extremely incompetent prosecutor to not completely decimate this guy in a courtroom. The q&a I've already got going in my head is pretty hilarious, but I'm typing on my iPhone and am lazy.
 
2012-04-30 12:31:20 AM

Sabyen91: bugontherug: George was on his back, with Trayvon on top of him.

This is what you believe.


That's what Zimmerman and his own apologists claim.
 
2012-04-30 12:33:56 AM
images.wikia.com

See boys, it works the same for critters of all kinds!
 
2012-04-30 12:33:56 AM

doglover: The problem is not the law, but rather cases like this where the guy in the car was able to claim self defense with a gun, despite being encased in two tons of mobile light armor claiming to fall under the law.


It's interesting that you have SO much sympathy for a killer who hunts down and shoots an unarmed teenager...but, no sympathy for this killer.

Why is that?
 
Displayed 50 of 751 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report