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.

(Fox News)   Man tells police he was "standing his ground" after he showed up to his neighbor's house with a gun because the party was too loud   (foxnews.com) divider line 246
    More: Dumbass, Houston, unincorporated areas, concealed handgun, Baytown, Grant Scheiner  
•       •       •

8382 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Jun 2012 at 6:07 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-09 03:24:31 PM  
I read about this, this guy needs seerious jail time.


He also brings out the raving gun-nuts who are nuttier than squirrel poops.
 
2012-06-09 03:34:26 PM  
Louisiana is trying to get a 'Stand Your Ground' type law passed now.

It's situations like this that make it such a bullshiat type of law.
So basically they are trying to claim that I can get a gun, barge into someone else's house and property, and shoot them dead if they get upset with me? The fark.

Like the case in Arizona where a guy almost runs over a mentally challenged man walking his dog. When the man got upset with the guy who almost ran him over, the guy driving got out of his car and shot him dead. The man walking his dog never touched the other dude, made no move to get near him, had no weapons, but was cursing him for almost running him over.
 
2012-06-09 03:38:47 PM  
Yes SYG is a horrible law and I dont see the logic behind it.

Its made a number of folks get killed. What a horrible law.
 
2012-06-09 03:51:21 PM  
It's fun to shoot people. It's not like "Big Gubbamint" should restrict someone's 2nd amendment right to have fun.
 
2012-06-09 03:59:49 PM  

Bunnyhat: So basically they are trying to claim that I can get a gun, barge into someone else's house and property, and shoot them dead if they get upset with me? The fark


This is, in effect, what happened in the Florida case. Except that Martin was on public property at the time.
 
2012-06-09 04:00:18 PM  
Can you only stand your ground with a gun?

I mean if you physically assault someone that is threatening you instead of shooting them is that standing your ground?
 
2012-06-09 04:02:11 PM  
Scheiner acknowledged there are examples where the use of deadly force goes too far. But he doesn't think that will prompt lawmakers to revise or pull back stand-your-ground laws

Once a few campaign contributors and/or government officials get shot, things will change in a hell of a rush.
 
2012-06-09 04:04:06 PM  
I understand the reasoning behind SYG laws, and I'm sympathetic to them. But I'm frustrated by the very sloppy way in which they're crafted. It seems that the people who craft these laws have a very limited paradigm for how people interact. They only seem to foresee scenarios where the innocent, well-meaning citizen reluctantly defends themselves and their family from the ruthless, thug, super-predator criminal. It's like they believe that's the only possible situation.

But other scenarios are not only predictable, but it's 100% certain that they'll happen. Situations like this, where people use SYG to shield their own aggressive behavior and instigation. Or like Martin & Zimmerman, which is looking more and more like two hot-heads worked themselves up to a fight where when one guy starts getting his ass beat, he pusses out and pulls a gun.

And of course, we have seen multiple stories here on Fark where it seems that the ability of someone to successfully claim SYG protections in some Southern states very much depends on the race of the shooter and the race of the shootee.

So once again, State governments pass laws with very little forethought, and leave it to the courts to establish all the case law on how these laws are actually implemented. Meanwhile, bodies pile up.
 
2012-06-09 04:05:57 PM  

Tigger: Can you only stand your ground with a gun?

I mean if you physically assault someone that is threatening you instead of shooting them is that standing your ground?


Yes. SYG laws can be used to defend against charges of non-deadly assault, such as punching someone.
 
2012-06-09 04:07:34 PM  

Tigger: Can you only stand your ground with a gun?

I mean if you physically assault someone that is threatening you instead of shooting them is that standing your ground?


There was a guy who "stood his ground" by running out of his apartment with a knife, chased the guy who was breaking into his car for a few blocks, then stabbed him to death.

Link
 
2012-06-09 04:09:11 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Tigger: Can you only stand your ground with a gun?

I mean if you physically assault someone that is threatening you instead of shooting them is that standing your ground?

Yes. SYG laws can be used to defend against charges of non-deadly assault, such as punching someone.


So if Martin assaulted Zimmerman wasn't he standing his ground?

If the means are irrelevant?

In other words the law appears to imply that you just have to WIN the altercation to be standing your ground!
 
2012-06-09 04:10:57 PM  

elffster: Yes SYG is a horrible law and I dont see the logic behind it.


Without it prosecutors get to fall back on forcing the defendant to show they had no ability to retreat. Leads to some not fun Monday morning quarterbacking.

- You COULD have jumped out of the 2nd story window
- You COULD have bailed out of the car after they jacked it

Etc.

Plus the whole "duty retreat" stuff only has an exception for you being in your home. Somebody breaks into your hunting cabin while you're sleeping. Different rules than your house. I don't see the logic in that. Same went for motor homes and campers and such.

So, basically SYG laws are in place because prosecutors have tried some real BS in the past.
 
2012-06-09 04:14:34 PM  

Tigger: So if Martin assaulted Zimmerman wasn't he standing his ground?


No. You can't shoot somebody for following you. That does not warrant deadly force. Likewise you can't beat up on somebody for following you.

Zimmerman following Martin was foolish. Martin beating on Zimmerman took it from foolish to rodeo and that's where deadly force became permissible. That is, assuming all the evidence I've seen stacks up in court.
 
2012-06-09 04:17:42 PM  
You can get tossed in jail and SYG will be ignored if you:

Shoot the ceiling.

Are black.

And a woman.

So, justice is served nicely here. I'm just not sure which planet im on anymore.
 
2012-06-09 04:20:51 PM  

Tigger: BarkingUnicorn: Tigger: Can you only stand your ground with a gun?

I mean if you physically assault someone that is threatening you instead of shooting them is that standing your ground?

Yes. SYG laws can be used to defend against charges of non-deadly assault, such as punching someone.

So if Martin assaulted Zimmerman wasn't he standing his ground?

If the means are irrelevant?

In other words the law appears to imply that you just have to WIN the altercation to be standing your ground!


Yes. Martin assaulted Zimmerman AFTER he stopped following him, stopped his car, put his car in park, turned it off, got out of it and walked up to Zimmerman.

Oh, wait, you mean it was the other way around?

C'mon. Enough farking bullshiat.

SYG should NEVER be allowed to be used when you pursue another individual. Period. No if's and or but's. Unless your a farking cop, you do NOT get to take the farking law into your own hands.
 
2012-06-09 04:23:12 PM  

VictoryCabal: I understand the reasoning behind SYG laws, and I'm sympathetic to them. But I'm frustrated by the very sloppy way in which they're crafted. It seems that the people who craft these laws have a very limited paradigm for how people interact. They only seem to foresee scenarios where the innocent, well-meaning citizen reluctantly defends themselves and their family from the ruthless, thug, super-predator criminal. It's like they believe that's the only possible situation.

But other scenarios are not only predictable, but it's 100% certain that they'll happen. Situations like this, where people use SYG to shield their own aggressive behavior and instigation. Or like Martin & Zimmerman, which is looking more and more like two hot-heads worked themselves up to a fight where when one guy starts getting his ass beat, he pusses out and pulls a gun.

And of course, we have seen multiple stories here on Fark where it seems that the ability of someone to successfully claim SYG protections in some Southern states very much depends on the race of the shooter and the race of the shootee.

So once again, State governments pass laws with very little forethought, and leave it to the courts to establish all the case law on how these laws are actually implemented. Meanwhile, bodies pile up.


IDK that the SYG laws are poorly crafted. The ones I've read about say that to use this defense you must not have provoked the attack and must not be committing any crime when you "stand your ground." But it seems judges are often ignoring those provisions in quite a few cases.

This case is pretty clear-cut to me. The Texas law shields you only when you are in your home, place of business, or vehicle. It also says you must not provoke the attack or be committing a crime. This defendant was way out of all bounds.

Florida's SYG law is different in that you can SYG anywhere that you have a right to be. On that count, Zimmerman is in the clear. Whether he provoked or instigated Martin's attack is problematic.

There's no question that Zimmerman accosted Martin initially. According to Zimmerman, that confrontation ended when Martin took off, and Z headed back to his car. Then, according to Z, Martin became the aggressor, returning to confront and attack Z.

I don't buy Zimmerman's story at all. But there's nothing to refute it.

The question the jury must decide is whether there were two separate incidents or just one. If one, and Zimmerman instigated it, then he should not be shielded by the SYG law.
 
2012-06-09 04:27:43 PM  
My point being that it is obviously an appallingly crafted piece of legislation isn't it?
 
2012-06-09 04:32:05 PM  
Everything Zimmerman said was the truth.

Except that part about him being broke.

Or his extra passport.

....hmmm....
 
2012-06-09 04:33:47 PM  
If this asshat left his home after/while calling the police about the noise, he had no intention of letting them handle it. Going over with a pistol under your shirt completely concealed, fine as long as it stays there. Going over there telling the police that "I'm in fear for my life" (then why in the fark are you going over there then? Especially after you already called the police to handle it?) & that you plan on "standing your ground" tells me everything I need to know - mainly that he went over there with the full intent on shooting someone.

The "I was in fear of my life" is drilled into anyone who takes a CCW class as the only reason that you should shoot anyone (his premeditated fear of his life doesn't count). "Stand your ground" doesn't apply when you are the aggressor or you put yourself into that situation on someone else's property. He went over there fully planning on shooting someone.

Originally "stand your ground" was supposed to apply in your own home because too many states had a "duty to retreat" clause in their laws (where if you heard someone breaking into your house you were required to try to escape rather than confronting them). The whole "syg" thing was to protect those who couldn't easily retreat (physically handicapped or had young kids asleep in a different room for instance) from getting screwed over by an overzealous prosecutor with a stick up his ass (most locations in any state would normally have nothing but good things to say about a homeowner shooting an invader so it wasn't an issue most of the time anyway. "SYG" just made it so that your #1 option didn't have to be run away).

That said however, none of that applies in this idiot's case. Murder One would be a good charge for him based upon what I read in the story. "SYG" has nothing to do with the story no matter what this idiot claims. He went over to the party with the full intent of shooting someone - why else make sure that the phrases "fear of my life" & "stand my ground" made it onto the video/911 call?
 
2012-06-09 04:40:52 PM  

elffster: You can get tossed in jail and SYG will be ignored if you:

Shoot the ceiling.

Are black.

And a woman.

So, justice is served nicely here. I'm just not sure which planet im on anymore.


You live on a planet where shooting in the direction of children (not the ceiling, that was a lie) after exiting the home and getting a handgun from the glove box of your car doesn't qualify for SYG. That's child endangerment. And hooking back up with the guy you shot at getting arrested for domestic assault during the trial will destroy your credibility.

I would say 20 years is too harsh, but she deserved to be convicted of something.
 
2012-06-09 04:41:46 PM  

jbuist: Tigger: So if Martin assaulted Zimmerman wasn't he standing his ground?

No. You can't shoot somebody for following you. That does not warrant deadly force. Likewise you can't beat up on somebody for following you.

Zimmerman following Martin was foolish. Martin beating on Zimmerman took it from foolish to rodeo and that's where deadly force became permissible. That is, assuming all the evidence I've seen stacks up in court.


I don't find it credible that Martin ran away from Zimmerman, clean out of his sight, and then returned just to start beating on Zimmerman. Makes no sense. The kid was scared, ran from his stalker, and was only 70 yards from home. Why come back? Why just walk up to an older, heavier dude and punch him in the nose?

I think it's much more likely that Zimmerman pursued Martin, caught up to him, and tried to detain him for the cops. That's more consistent with Zimmerman's behavior up to that point. Then Martin lashed out in self-defense and got shot. In this scenario, Zimmerman provoked the attack and the SYG defense is precluded by law.

But we don't have any independent evidence or witnesses to what happened between the time Martin ran from Zimmerman and the time Martin was seen on top of Zimmerman.

Much as I would like to convict Zimmerman upon my presumption that he pursued and accosted Martin, I just couldn't do it if I sat on that jury. I would need some evidence to support my presumption.

Does that make me a bad juror?
 
2012-06-09 04:43:12 PM  

Recoil Therapy: That said however, none of that applies in this idiot's case. Murder One would be a good charge for him based upon what I read in the story. "SYG" has nothing to do with the story no matter what this idiot claims. He went over to the party with the full intent of shooting someone - why else make sure that the phrases "fear of my life" & "stand my ground" made it onto the video/911 call?


Pretty much what I'm thinking too.
 
2012-06-09 04:45:27 PM  
From what I read about this case, this guy was already known in his neighborhood as being a whack-job.
 
2012-06-09 04:46:35 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: I think it's much more likely that Zimmerman pursued Martin, caught up to him, and tried to detain him for the cops. That's more consistent with Zimmerman's behavior up to that point. Then Martin lashed out in self-defense and got shot. In this scenario, Zimmerman provoked the attack and the SYG defense is precluded by law.


That's very possible, but even in that case Martin would have been the one to "up the ante" to lethal force. Even if somebody is illegally detaining you you can't jump to lethal force unless you fear for your life or great bodily harm.
 
2012-06-09 04:51:19 PM  

BunkyBrewman: SYG should NEVER be allowed to be used when you pursue another individual. Period. No if's and or but's. Unless your a farking cop, you do NOT get to take the farking law into your own hands.


this this and more this

this tard was not stand his ground. this tard started the altercation.
he had an infinite number of other options and he went for the camera and the gun.
interesting ... why did he stop recording after shooting?
did he need his finger on the record button or did he turn it off??
bwhahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
 
2012-06-09 04:52:38 PM  

jbuist: BarkingUnicorn: I think it's much more likely that Zimmerman pursued Martin, caught up to him, and tried to detain him for the cops. That's more consistent with Zimmerman's behavior up to that point. Then Martin lashed out in self-defense and got shot. In this scenario, Zimmerman provoked the attack and the SYG defense is precluded by law.

That's very possible, but even in that case Martin would have been the one to "up the ante" to lethal force. Even if somebody is illegally detaining you you can't jump to lethal force unless you fear for your life or great bodily harm.


OK, let's assume that Zimmerman lied and he did pursue and accost Martin. Then we can just as easily assume that Zimmerman went for his gun and Martin felt in fear for his life.

Unfortunately, we can't convict on assumptions. I can't, at least... and I would very much like to do so.
 
2012-06-09 04:53:03 PM  

Recoil Therapy: If this asshat left his home after/while calling the police about the noise, he had no intention of letting them handle it. Going over with a pistol under your shirt completely concealed, fine as long as it stays there. Going over there telling the police that "I'm in fear for my life" (then why in the fark are you going over there then? Especially after you already called the police to handle it?) & that you plan on "standing your ground" tells me everything I need to know - mainly that he went over there with the full intent on shooting someone.

The "I was in fear of my life" is drilled into anyone who takes a CCW class as the only reason that you should shoot anyone (his premeditated fear of his life doesn't count). "Stand your ground" doesn't apply when you are the aggressor or you put yourself into that situation on someone else's property. He went over there fully planning on shooting someone.

Originally "stand your ground" was supposed to apply in your own home because too many states had a "duty to retreat" clause in their laws (where if you heard someone breaking into your house you were required to try to escape rather than confronting them). The whole "syg" thing was to protect those who couldn't easily retreat (physically handicapped or had young kids asleep in a different room for instance) from getting screwed over by an overzealous prosecutor with a stick up his ass (most locations in any state would normally have nothing but good things to say about a homeowner shooting an invader so it wasn't an issue most of the time anyway. "SYG" just made it so that your #1 option didn't have to be run away).

That said however, none of that applies in this idiot's case. Murder One would be a good charge for him based upon what I read in the story. "SYG" has nothing to do with the story no matter what this idiot claims. He went over to the party with the full intent of shooting someone - why else make sure that the phrases "fear of my life" & "stand ...


this
 
2012-06-09 05:34:45 PM  
Bet that works since those laws are so badly worded on purpose. They are intended to be misused when they were written by ALEC.
 
2012-06-09 05:47:43 PM  
YOU CANNOT PROVOKE A FIGHT AND THEN CLAIM SELF-DEFENSE WHEN YOU KILL SOMEONE
 
2012-06-09 05:51:14 PM  

Mentat: YOU CANNOT PROVOKE A FIGHT AND THEN CLAIM SELF-DEFENSE WHEN YOU KILL SOMEONE


Watch out, 9beers is going to come in and yell at you.
 
2012-06-09 05:54:23 PM  

Recoil Therapy: If this asshat left his home after/while calling the police about the noise, he had no intention of letting them handle it. Going over with a pistol under your shirt completely concealed, fine as long as it stays there. Going over there telling the police that "I'm in fear for my life" (then why in the fark are you going over there then? Especially after you already called the police to handle it?) & that you plan on "standing your ground" tells me everything I need to know - mainly that he went over there with the full intent on shooting someone.

The "I was in fear of my life" is drilled into anyone who takes a CCW class as the only reason that you should shoot anyone (his premeditated fear of his life doesn't count). "Stand your ground" doesn't apply when you are the aggressor or you put yourself into that situation on someone else's property. He went over there fully planning on shooting someone.

Originally "stand your ground" was supposed to apply in your own home because too many states had a "duty to retreat" clause in their laws (where if you heard someone breaking into your house you were required to try to escape rather than confronting them). The whole "syg" thing was to protect those who couldn't easily retreat (physically handicapped or had young kids asleep in a different room for instance) from getting screwed over by an overzealous prosecutor with a stick up his ass (most locations in any state would normally have nothing but good things to say about a homeowner shooting an invader so it wasn't an issue most of the time anyway. "SYG" just made it so that your #1 option didn't have to be run away).

That said however, none of that applies in this idiot's case. Murder One would be a good charge for him based upon what I read in the story. "SYG" has nothing to do with the story no matter what this idiot claims. He went over to the party with the full intent of shooting someone - why else make sure that the phrases "fear of my life" & "stand my ground" made it onto the video/911 call?


That bit in bold is being ignored by far too many people.

It would also be good to maintain the distinction between the castle doctrine (no duty to retreat in the home, sometimes extended to place of business and/or vehicle) and SYG (no duty to retreat anywhere, so long as you're there lawfully). The castle doctrine, in one form or another, is already law in most of the country. SYG is a more recent fashion, and is only law in a few states so far.
 
2012-06-09 06:05:10 PM  

GAT_00: Mentat: YOU CANNOT PROVOKE A FIGHT AND THEN CLAIM SELF-DEFENSE WHEN YOU KILL SOMEONE

Watch out, 9beers is going to come in and yell at you.


cant we just go to this guys house, call 911, yell that he is coming right for you, and shoot and kill him??
clearly my life was in danger ...
 
2012-06-09 06:12:12 PM  

namatad: GAT_00: Mentat: YOU CANNOT PROVOKE A FIGHT AND THEN CLAIM SELF-DEFENSE WHEN YOU KILL SOMEONE

Watch out, 9beers is going to come in and yell at you.

cant we just go to this guys house, call 911, yell that he is coming right for you, and shoot and kill him??
clearly my life was in danger ...


Why bother yelling? If you're the survivor, whack your head off of something and call it a day.

(before someone takes this the wrong way I am not alluding to Zimmerman)
 
2012-06-09 06:14:14 PM  

jbuist: Tigger: So if Martin assaulted Zimmerman wasn't he standing his ground?

No. You can't shoot somebody for following you. That does not warrant deadly force. Likewise you can't beat up on somebody for following you.

Zimmerman following Martin was foolish. Martin beating on Zimmerman took it from foolish to rodeo and that's where deadly force became permissible. That is, assuming all the evidence I've seen stacks up in court.


So if a chick feels threatened that someone is following her and she starts screaming at them to leave her alone, which escalates into her throwing her heel at them, it's her fault and the person who followed her has permission to pull out a gun on her and shoot her?
 
2012-06-09 06:14:39 PM  
If these laws weren't terrible, they wouldn't be titled the sort of thing that shooting enthusiasts* jerk off to. I believe my state has a "make my day" law.

*I say shooting enthusiasts, because there are plenty of gun enthusiasts who aren't assholes.
 
2012-06-09 06:14:40 PM  

elffster: Yes SYG is a horrible law and I dont see the logic behind it.

Its made a number of folks get killed. What a horrible law.


I agree. I'm all for a self-defense statute but it MUST include a duty to retreat if you are reasonably able to do so.

Honestly, who WANTS to shoot someone anyway? I have a shotgun, and if someone is breaking into my house, you'd better believe they are going to see it. I would pray to whatever deity I could think of that I would not have to use it, that the mere sight of it would be enough to send them running. I would hate to live with that guilt, even if I absolutely had to do it, and if I absolutely had to, I would to protect my family. My gun exists to hopefully diffuse any such situation with its mere presence, using it would be an absolute last resort and I sincerely hope that never comes up. I'm quite happy with running a potential burglar off, I don't want to kill them.
 
2012-06-09 06:14:56 PM  
It doesn't work if you invite yourself over.
 
2012-06-09 06:16:04 PM  
Stand you ground. When you read the text of the law (and avoid listening to left and right wing political opinions) its a good law written for the honest citizen versus the criminals. The problem arises when every nutty vigilante thinks it applies to them when they try to impose their will on others. It seems the courts usually sort that out
 
2012-06-09 06:16:11 PM  
what a maroon. typical neighborhood any house may have a get-together once or twice a year. big deal. let them have their fun. when it's your turn, you and your friends can stay up late. morans.
 
2012-06-09 06:17:06 PM  

VictoryCabal: I understand the reasoning behind SYG laws, and I'm sympathetic to them. But I'm frustrated by the very sloppy way in which they're crafted. It seems that the people who craft these laws have a very limited paradigm for how people interact. They only seem to foresee scenarios where the innocent, well-meaning citizen reluctantly defends themselves and their family from the ruthless, thug, super-predator criminal. It's like they believe that's the only possible situation.

But other scenarios are not only predictable, but it's 100% certain that they'll happen. Situations like this, where people use SYG to shield their own aggressive behavior and instigation. Or like Martin & Zimmerman, which is looking more and more like two hot-heads worked themselves up to a fight where when one guy starts getting his ass beat, he pusses out and pulls a gun.

And of course, we have seen multiple stories here on Fark where it seems that the ability of someone to successfully claim SYG protections in some Southern states very much depends on the race of the shooter and the race of the shootee.

So once again, State governments pass laws with very little forethought, and leave it to the courts to establish all the case law on how these laws are actually implemented. Meanwhile, bodies pile up.


The laws were originally intended to protect wives/girlfriends from their abusive significant others. Somehow, this fact was lost in the rush to sell guns. Now it's chase down, shoot from behind while standing on some ground laws. I can't wait for the drive them down on the sidewalk laws. Death Race laws will be all the rage next.
 
2012-06-09 06:17:35 PM  

elffster: You can get tossed in jail and SYG will be ignored if you:

Shoot the ceiling.

Are black.

And a woman.

So, justice is served nicely here. I'm just not sure which planet im on anymore.


Or Mexican:
Joe Horn, who was not charged by a grand jury for fatally shooting two men he suspected of burglarizing a neighbor's home.
ww1.hdnux.com
http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/pasadena-news/article/Joe-Horn-Mee t- the-man-behind-the-gun-1824105.php
Diego Ortiz, 30, and Hernando Riascos Torres, 38, collapsed and died not far from Horn's house. Both were unemployed illegal immigrants from Colombia with Houston addresses
 
2012-06-09 06:19:28 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Once a few campaign contributors and/or government officials get shot, things will change in a hell of a rush.


We thought the same with airport pat downs and no-fly-lists. Hasn't happened yet.
 
2012-06-09 06:19:43 PM  
I need to know what kind of music was being played at the party before I know how to label this guy. Was it rap? This man is a hero who stood up to thugs who think they can do ANYTHING and the fact that he is facing charges for exercising his Constitutional rights is a travesty. Was it country? This thug should have been deported back to Mexico years ago and needs to fry for this heinous crime against honest Godfearing REAL Americans. Either way, IMPEACH OBAMA NOW
 
2012-06-09 06:21:39 PM  

Proteios1: Stand you ground. When you read the text of the law (and avoid listening to left and right wing political opinions) its a good law written for the honest citizen versus the criminals. The problem arises when every nutty vigilante thinks it applies to them when they try to impose their will on others. It seems the courts usually sort that out


so they are terrible laws.
a good law would include and exclude situations created by these wackjobs.
 
2012-06-09 06:22:04 PM  

HempHead: elffster: You can get tossed in jail and SYG will be ignored if you:

Shoot the ceiling.

Are black.

And a woman.

So, justice is served nicely here. I'm just not sure which planet im on anymore.

Or Mexican:
Joe Horn, who was not charged by a grand jury for fatally shooting two men he suspected of burglarizing a neighbor's home.
[ww1.hdnux.com image 337x471]
http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/pasadena-news/article/Joe-Horn-Mee t- the-man-behind-the-gun-1824105.php
Diego Ortiz, 30, and Hernando Riascos Torres, 38, collapsed and died not far from Horn's house. Both were unemployed illegal immigrants from Colombia with Houston addresses


That one was a separate issue, totally unrelated to self-defense laws. Texas law allows the use of deadly force to protect property.
 
2012-06-09 06:22:12 PM  
That's not how the stand your ground law/principle works at all. I don't have to add any "I don't know about his state" qualifiers here, because my CCP is from TX, and that's not how it works in TX gun law, period, end of story.

If you in any way initiate the confrontation the positive defense for self-defense does not apply. Ever. Sorry.

//Bonus: if you're on someone else's property and they request that you leave, if you do not leave then you're guilty of tresspassing. If you are armed and refuse a reasonable (i.e. physically possible) request that you leave you're an armed intruder and they are allowed to shoot you as much as they want, whereas if you're still there when the cops show up that's a felony.

//Not sure what the hate for the stand your ground philosophy is. Well, no, that's a lie: I know where the hate comes from, and it's from people that don't even understand what SYG entails. I've yet to see an anti-SYG person give an example of something bad the laws cause that isn't already illegal.
 
2012-06-09 06:24:18 PM  

namatad: Proteios1: Stand you ground. When you read the text of the law (and avoid listening to left and right wing political opinions) its a good law written for the honest citizen versus the criminals. The problem arises when every nutty vigilante thinks it applies to them when they try to impose their will on others. It seems the courts usually sort that out

so they are terrible laws.
a good law would include and exclude situations created by these wackjobs.


The laws already do. The whackjobs just don't give a damn, and go around being whackjobs no matter what the law actually says.
 
2012-06-09 06:26:40 PM  

jbuist: BarkingUnicorn: I think it's much more likely that Zimmerman pursued Martin, caught up to him, and tried to detain him for the cops. That's more consistent with Zimmerman's behavior up to that point. Then Martin lashed out in self-defense and got shot. In this scenario, Zimmerman provoked the attack and the SYG defense is precluded by law.

That's very possible, but even in that case Martin would have been the one to "up the ante" to lethal force. Even if somebody is illegally detaining you you can't jump to lethal force unless you fear for your life or great bodily harm.


So you don't think being chased by somebody who you don't know wouldn't cause somebody to fear for their life or great bodily harm?
 
2012-06-09 06:28:27 PM  

Proteios1: Stand you ground. When you read the text of the law (and avoid listening to left and right wing political opinions) its a good law written for the honest citizen versus the criminals. The problem arises when every nutty vigilante thinks it applies to them when they try to impose their will on others. It seems the courts usually sort that out


Not when the dumbass police interpret the law to mean that they should not arrest or charge anybody who shoots someone and then says "self defense".
 
2012-06-09 06:29:02 PM  
And so it begins...
 
Displayed 50 of 246 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report