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 07:47:31 PM

lostinjersey: trespass onto private party. tell owner how to handle things on his own property. All while having a weapon visible. But you're standing your ground. Guess what asshole? it wasn't your ground to stand. You had no right to be there. You call the police and let them handle it. The other guy was absolutely justified to go into his own home and get a gun against an armed aggressor on his property.


Now he's justified and dead. But he still gets to be Right.

So I guess he Wins.

...right?
 
2012-06-09 07:48:22 PM

fluffy2097: bugontherug: There is no music heard on the video. Apparently, they more than turned it down.

I've never had audio not picked up on a cell phone before...


Well, that would seem to support the inference that the music was in fact turned down. I knew you were smart enough to come around.

I cannot believe anyone thinks this sort of dick waving conduct is reasonable. How far our country has fallen.
 
2012-06-09 07:49:29 PM
Defending himself from loud noises.
With even louder noise.

I would have tried earplugs.
 
2012-06-09 07:53:48 PM
Big government has no right to tell me when I can or can't kill someone.

Don't treat on me or I'll rise again.
 
2012-06-09 07:54:49 PM

Julie Cochrane: lostinjersey: trespass onto private party. tell owner how to handle things on his own property. All while having a weapon visible. But you're standing your ground. Guess what asshole? it wasn't your ground to stand. You had no right to be there. You call the police and let them handle it. The other guy was absolutely justified to go into his own home and get a gun against an armed aggressor on his property.

Now he's justified and dead. But he still gets to be Right.

So I guess he Wins.

...right?


Nope. He loses. But that doesn't mean the instigator isn't a f*cking murderer.
 
2012-06-09 07:55:56 PM

lostinjersey: trespass onto private party. tell owner how to handle things on his own property. All while having a weapon visible. But you're standing your ground. Guess what asshole? it wasn't your ground to stand. You had no right to be there. You call the police and let them handle it. The other guy was absolutely justified to go into his own home and get a gun against an armed aggressor on his property.


This. It's not the concept of SYG that is flawed, it's the implementation.
 
2012-06-09 07:56:58 PM
This is so clearly NOT a stand your ground/castle type situation that i am horrified the defense is even allowed.
 
2012-06-09 07:57:30 PM
I've shot people for a lot less than playing loud music
 
2012-06-09 07:59:55 PM

gojirast: lostinjersey: trespass onto private party. tell owner how to handle things on his own property. All while having a weapon visible. But you're standing your ground. Guess what asshole? it wasn't your ground to stand. You had no right to be there. You call the police and let them handle it. The other guy was absolutely justified to go into his own home and get a gun against an armed aggressor on his property.

This. It's not the concept of SYG that is flawed, it's the implementation.


No, it's the concept. Most of the objections to the "duty to retreat" are rooted in misunderstandings of it. It should be renamed "duty to take reasonable steps to avoid physical confrontation," and reinstated.
 
2012-06-09 08:04:49 PM
Alright folks -- I'm from Texas and I have a CHL permit as well.

And I will tell you this guy who got pissed about the loud music and "defended" himself needs to be charged with murder and either 1) spend the rest of his days in prison or 2) be shot himself.

If I go over to someone elses property and start yelling and screaming - how am i *NOT* the one instigating things? If this man really had an issue with loud noise he should have told the police to come out and let them deal with it. And Castle doctrine applies to your home/workplace/car.... NOT your neighbors driveway.

makes me sad and embarrassed that wackjobs like this give Texas a bad name. This person demonstrated a known and calculated desire to shoot someone by intentionally bringing a firearm to a situation he started. And how the hell does a court "not" allow evidence to be presented. Are we really at a point where facts or things that have happened can be barred from being seen such that a judge gets the verdict he wants?

At the end of the day this crackpot murdered someone over some loud music. The "your ground" part of the SYG law means your home, your car, or your work -- a place you have a natural right to be in. "your ground" is not everywhere and anywhere you happen to be standing.

Since he was technically on the property of the party goers... would he be considered trespassing? And how would anyone seek to apply castle doctrine defense when you are already technically breaking the law?

I support ones right to defend themselves - but by using this guys logic I could go stand in the ghetto and open fire on any dirty homeless guy that approaches me and say "i feared for my life". I hope this guy spends the next 40 years getting raped and beaten in prison for taking the law into his own hands like this.
 
2012-06-09 08:06:09 PM

fluffy2097: lostinjersey: The other guy was absolutely justified to go into his own home and get a gun against an armed aggressor on his property.

He sure was, but it ended up getting him killed. For the sake of not turning down a farkin stereo.


well there's where that guy should've called the cops. both sides could've taken actions that would've resulted in a different outcome. ultimately though, the dead guy was in the right. Unfortunately thats a small consolation.
 
2012-06-09 08:07:40 PM

bugontherug: gojirast: lostinjersey: trespass onto private party. tell owner how to handle things on his own property. All while having a weapon visible. But you're standing your ground. Guess what asshole? it wasn't your ground to stand. You had no right to be there. You call the police and let them handle it. The other guy was absolutely justified to go into his own home and get a gun against an armed aggressor on his property.

This. It's not the concept of SYG that is flawed, it's the implementation.

No, it's the concept. Most of the objections to the "duty to retreat" are rooted in misunderstandings of it. It should be renamed "duty to take reasonable steps to avoid physical confrontation," and reinstated.


Before North Carolina implemented a Castle Law several months ago, I was required to take every possible path to escape my house or retreat into a locked room to avoid conflict before I could shoot an invader. I would also need proof that the invader was armed with a gun and intended to kill me. Also if I did shoot the invader then I would be liable in civil court when the criminal sued me for their injuries.

There is not misunderstanding about "the duty to retreat" in North Carolina before the Castle Law was put into place. Many homeowners were tried by D.A.'s across our state over the past 40 years when they defended their homes and families from violent criminals (usually with long felony histories).

Frankly the people of North Carolina were sick of the situation and demanded the Castle Law be put in place. Now I can defend myself when violent criminals break into my home.
 
2012-06-09 08:09:44 PM

fluffy2097: Next time you have a gun pointed in your face, dare em to shoot you.


Incredibly, I've gotten through my entire life to date without ever having a gun pointed at me. I've walked the streets of New York City, Miami, New Orleans, Los Angeles, San Antonio, St. Louis, Kansas City, Washington DC, and more, and done so after dark. I've lived around gun toting rednecks much of my life, and even exchanged words with some of them.

I guess the difference between me and you is I don't live in an action movie.
 
2012-06-09 08:12:35 PM

TravisBickle62: I've shot people for a lot less than playing loud music


True, there was that man in Reno...
 
2012-06-09 08:14:21 PM

JonPace: BarkingUnicorn: 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?

Yes. So many people feel so superior playing the 'even though its obviously true, I would have to vote not guilty due to whatever' l, but in reality its just accepting the brokenness of the system. Like the Casey Anthony trial where its quite obvious she killed her daughter yet everyone who thinks they're so much more evolved than everyone else thinks letting her getting away with it was the right thing to do.

Common sense has no place in our legal system


Once upon a time, it was obviously true that if your cow stopped giving milk then the old woman who lived all alone must be a witch and should be burned.

Is it better that ten innocent men should go to prison than to have one guilty man go free?
 
2012-06-09 08:15:12 PM
Hoping this comes to my town...so many idiots I could snipe on my street when I have a bad day.
 
2012-06-09 08:15:50 PM
It's late, I'm tired, I've rambled on below and I'm too tired to edit. If you're too tired to read my rambling, you've been given fair warning:

SYG laws aren't bad per se. What we're getting into here is that the problem with self-defense claims is that not all self-defense claims are legitimate.

A lot of aggressors who are starting a fight believe they are acting in self-defense. That's because the kind of people who start fights aren't the most mentally healthy, functional people in the world. They have a lousy to non-existent sense of personal boundaries. They don't have any realistic understanding of where their rights end and the other guy's rights start, or any real respect for the other guy's rights.

So usually when an aggressor starts a fight, in his mind (or her mind) you started it by something you did or didn't do and you damned well know or should know what you did.

The guys at the party didn't realize that the douchey old guy with the gun, when they didn't listen to him and stop approaching, when they got close enough to physically overwhelm him and kill him dead before he could get shots off, he was immediately terrified that they would.

You know and I know that that those drunk guys were not battle-hardened, front-line infantry veterans of heavy fighting who had each actually killed people before. They were not going to have a "kill" response and mob him as a pack and take him down. (They were also not, for example, the Cali Cartel or a Mexican drug gang, or MS 13)

He didn't know that--because he was one crazed motherfarker.

A self-defense law protects you if a reasonable person in your situation, knowing what you knew, would have believed he was in immediate danger of death or serious bodily harm.

This guy really was afraid by the time he shot--I believe that. But he was afraid because he was a frigging loony who couldn't tell the difference between a bunch of drunk redneck/dudebro hybrids partying and a vicious pack of Cholos. And that gets you jailtime with hopefully some nice pills from the prison infirmary.

The guy was the aggressor. He doesn't realize it because he's a frigging loony. It's fairly common for aggressors to be frigging loony in the sense of having no boundaries and not understanding that they started it.

I used to be a moderator on a webboard. It was always the same thing when people got into a squabble. Always with the fingerpointing. "Look at him! Look at what he did to me!"

People who habitually get in squabbles tend to wear blinders to their own part in causing the squabbles. They're all over the other guy's sins but just can't see their own.

And a whole lot of self-defense claims are like that, because a whole lot of the people who habitually get in fights and scuffles perceive their fight or scuffle as "self-defense."
 
2012-06-09 08:16:41 PM

gblive: bugontherug: gojirast: lostinjersey: trespass onto private party. tell owner how to handle things on his own property. All while having a weapon visible. But you're standing your ground. Guess what asshole? it wasn't your ground to stand. You had no right to be there. You call the police and let them handle it. The other guy was absolutely justified to go into his own home and get a gun against an armed aggressor on his property.

This. It's not the concept of SYG that is flawed, it's the implementation.

No, it's the concept. Most of the objections to the "duty to retreat" are rooted in misunderstandings of it. It should be renamed "duty to take reasonable steps to avoid physical confrontation," and reinstated.

Before North Carolina implemented a Castle Law several months ago, I was required to take every possible path to escape my house or retreat into a locked room to avoid conflict before I could shoot an invader. I would also need proof that the invader was armed with a gun and intended to kill me. Also if I did shoot the invader then I would be liable in civil court when the criminal sued me for their injuries.

There is not misunderstanding about "the duty to retreat" in North Carolina before the Castle Law was put into place. Many homeowners were tried by D.A.'s across our state over the past 40 years when they defended their homes and families from violent criminals (usually with long felony histories).

Frankly the people of North Carolina were sick of the situation and demanded the Castle Law be put in place. Now I can defend myself when violent criminals break into my home.


That all well and good, but this isn't a Castle Law situation. This guy went on someones property brandishing a firearm, started a confrontation, then shot 3 people and said he had to shoot those people because he thought his life was in danger.

If he gets away with this what is stopping people from breaking into anybody's home and killing the homeowner because the home owner defending his property made him feel that his life was in danger?
 
2012-06-09 08:17:24 PM
Fun fact: There was a candy bowl full of skittles at the party.
Right next to the iced teas.
 
2012-06-09 08:17:45 PM

Fluorescent Testicle: I'm as pro-gun rights as somebody can be without turning into an NRA whacko, but Stand Your Ground laws not only go too far, they do it while shooting several unarmed people in the farking face.


Or in their backs.
 
2012-06-09 08:21:02 PM

ongbok: g
That all well and good, but this isn't a Castle Law situation. This guy went on someones property brandishing a firearm, started a confrontation, then shot 3 people and said he had to shoot those people because he thought his life was in danger.

If he gets away with this what is stopping people from breaking into anybody's home and killing the homeowner because the home owner defending his property made him feel that his life was in danger?


I fully agree that this case in Texas is not a Castle Law situation.
 
2012-06-09 08:22:53 PM

fluffy2097: LasersHurt: I feel like you're treating the symptoms and not the cause.

The cause is human retardation. Party dudes had no respect for gun guy and wouldn't turn it down until he pulled out his piece. Once gun guy showed his gun and told them to turn down the farking music, party dudes said "No way, We're kicking your ass and my buddy is gonna go get his shotgun"

Gun guy shot first.

So the root cause is people being unable to turn down their farking stereo testosterone.


FTFA
 
2012-06-09 08:23:02 PM
Standing. his ground.
img441.imageshack.us
"It's go time!!"
 
2012-06-09 08:26:09 PM

gblive: Before North Carolina implemented a Castle Law several months ago, I was required to take every possible path to escape my house or retreat into a locked room to avoid conflict before I could shoot an invader. I would also need proof that the invader was armed with a gun and intended to kill me. Also if I did shoot the invader then I would be liable in civil court when the criminal sued me for their injuries.

There is not misunderstanding about "the duty to retreat" in North Carolina before the Castle Law was put into place. Many homeowners were tried by D.A.'s across our state over the past 40 years when they defended their homes and families from violent criminals (usually with long felony histories).


You've already exhibited some misunderstanding. North Carolina already had a Castle Doctrine. North Carolina did not repudiate any duty to retreat inside one's home, because there was already no duty to retreat inside one's home. Rather, North Carolina expanded its Castle Doctrine to include vehicles and workplaces. It's sort of a limited version of Florida's SYG statute.

Many homeowners were tried by D.A.'s across our state over the past 40 years when they defended their homes and families from violent criminals (usually with long felony histories).

Can you find some citations for this?
 
2012-06-09 08:26:34 PM

Bunnyhat: 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.


Nevada has been a "stand your ground" state for quite a while and that's never how it's really played out here. If you initiate a confrontation you aren't the one who legally gets to use deadly force. Stand your ground is for the guys this idiot shot. It's a shame they won't be able to introduce evidence that the shooter liked to threaten neighbors with his gun.

"Look I'm not losing to these people anymore."

To me, that says he was intending that night to shoot/kill someone.
 
2012-06-09 08:29:37 PM

gblive: There is not misunderstanding about "the duty to retreat" in North Carolina before the Castle Law was put into place


Yes, there is. As I just explained, North Carolina already had a Castle Law which precluded the sorts of prosecutions you're positing. This article, which took about twenty seconds to find on Google, explains:

Link

So I'm willing to bet a pretty penny if in fact there were any prosecutions with facts remotely resembling the ones you describe, there were other wrinkles involved. Like the Louisiana case where a homeowner shot in the back of the head an intruder who had already surrendered and was on his knees.
 
2012-06-09 08:30:56 PM
Judge is a prick for not letting folks tell about how farked up this weirdo was.

Ive never heard of someone being tossed out of his union, for one thing. Plus the accounts of the neighbors talking about how he acted on his street.

Dude is majorly farked in the head. If he goes free, I would have to think he will kill someone else, sooner if not later.
 
2012-06-09 08:31:16 PM

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

Yes, there is. Facts which are not in dispute:

* Zimmerman was so angry, he could not refrain from using foul language and epithets while on the phone with police.

* Zimmerman was especially angry that "these assholes always get away." From this, and combined with his angry, aggressive demeanor, we may infer that Zimmmerman set out with the intent to detain Trayvon.

* Zimmerman was carrying a loaded firearm, which gives rise to the inference he was confident in his ability to handle a physical confrontation.

* When asked to arrange a meeting place with the officer, Zimmerman declined. Instead, he asked that the officer call him upon arrival. This evidence adds to the inference that Zimmerman intended to follow Trayvon after hanging up with the police.

* Trayvon tried to avoid confrontation, by fleeing from Zimmerman.

* Trayvon was not carrying a loaded firearm, or any weapon at all.

* Trayvon was conducting lawful business in a place he had a right to be, and minding his own business.

Thus, it is undisputed that an armed, angry, and confrontational Zimmerman had a physical confrontation with Trayvon after a) know for a fact he pursued Trayvon before talking to the police, and b) we may permissibly infer from the undisputed evidence he continued to pursue Trayvon after talking to the police. We likewise know Trayvon, unarmed, tried to avoid physical confrontation altogether.

The undisputed facts alone give rise to the inference that Zimmerman started the physical confrontation. In reality, the only evidence Trayvon started the physical confrontation comes from Zimmerman himself. We now know Zimmerman is less than credible, and the most reasonable course of action is to disregard his statements.

We have other credible evidence supporting the inference that Zimmerman started the physical confrontation. Specifically, Trayvon's girlfriend's statement that Trayvon was fright ...

Trayvon said "get off, get off."


I missed that part. Might swing my vote, actually.

You make a good case.
 
2012-06-09 08:37:46 PM

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



Oh I think you can.
 
2012-06-09 08:43:24 PM

BarkingUnicorn: I missed that part. Might swing my vote, actually.

You make a good case.


Thank you. The prosecutor alleged in her probable cause affidavit that Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon after getting off the phone with police. This is a key fact, and I believe she's going to be able to put together a timeline which proves it.

But at the most basic level, the undisputed evidence shows we have an armed, angry, aggressive Zimmerman pissed off that "these assholes always get away," and an unarmed Trayvon who was so shaken up he tried to run away. I believe that's enough to find Zimmerman started the physical fight by itself.
 
2012-06-09 08:47:22 PM

gblive: "He did that to my ex-husband," Johnson said. "He didn't do that to us out here in the road, but police when they came to my house said he really knows his handbook real well because he used the right words. He said that my ex-husband was coming at him in an aggressive way on his property."..


I mentioned something like that back in my (well if I tell you where I'll be filtered but it's on the other page...) ____ _____. This psycho knew EXACTLY what to say that would, if not exonerate him completely, throw a whole lot of reasonable doubt into the situation. The fact that he said those things on the phone while walking over to the party shows a large amount of premeditiation. If he genuinely was 'in fear for his life' (very key words) why in the hell did he keep going over just to get the stereo turned down (or wait for the cop to get there). He went over there with every intention of shooting someone & was laying the foundation for a self defense argument the whole way. Premeditated murder in the first degree, shoot him down like the rabid dog he is.
 
2012-06-09 08:48:34 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.


I agree, and I'm all second-amendmenty.
 
2012-06-09 08:54:52 PM
If you carry a gun and are not a cop, you have a small penis. End of story.
 
2012-06-09 08:54:57 PM

bugontherug: gblive: Before North Carolina implemented a Castle Law several months ago, I was required to take every possible path to escape my house or retreat into a locked room to avoid conflict before I could shoot an invader. I would also need proof that the invader was armed with a gun and intended to kill me. Also if I did shoot the invader then I would be liable in civil court when the criminal sued me for their injuries.

There is not misunderstanding about "the duty to retreat" in North Carolina before the Castle Law was put into place. Many homeowners were tried by D.A.'s across our state over the past 40 years when they defended their homes and families from violent criminals (usually with long felony histories).

You've already exhibited some misunderstanding. North Carolina already had a Castle Doctrine. North Carolina did not repudiate any duty to retreat inside one's home, because there was already no duty to retreat inside one's home. Rather, North Carolina expanded its Castle Doctrine to include vehicles and workplaces. It's sort of a limited version of Florida's SYG statute.

Many homeowners were tried by D.A.'s across our state over the past 40 years when they defended their homes and families from violent criminals (usually with long felony histories).

Can you find some citations for this?


If you start Googling - North Carolina homeowner charged with shooting intruder followed by a year like 1999

then you will start pulling up examples...
Durham man charged with murder in shooting of suspected burglar

Seagroves on trial for shooting intruder

Also here is information on the North Carolina Castle Law

""On December 1, 2011, North Carolina's new law regarding the use of deadly force against an intruder took effect, extending the use of deadly force to motor vehicles and places of work. The law also eliminates the duty to retreat and provides protection from criminal and civil liability."

"(f) A lawful occupant within his or her home, motor vehicle, or workplace does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section."
 
2012-06-09 09:02:18 PM

bugontherug: gblive: There is not misunderstanding about "the duty to retreat" in North Carolina before the Castle Law was put into place

Yes, there is. As I just explained, North Carolina already had a Castle Law which precluded the sorts of prosecutions you're positing. This article, which took about twenty seconds to find on Google, explains:

Link

So I'm willing to bet a pretty penny if in fact there were any prosecutions with facts remotely resembling the ones you describe, there were other wrinkles involved. Like the Louisiana case where a homeowner shot in the back of the head an intruder who had already surrendered and was on his knees.


Actually - let's read the law. The North Carolina Castle Doctrine passed in 2011 eliminated the requirement that you retreat in your home. Let's read the actual law.

Wikipedia Reference with NC Castle Law text

On December 1, 2011, North Carolina's new law regarding the use of deadly force against an intruder took effect, extending the use of deadly force to motor vehicles and places of work. The law also eliminates the duty to retreat and provides protection from criminal and civil liability.

"(f) A lawful occupant within his or her home, motor vehicle, or workplace does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section."

As I demonstrated in just two of many previous cases in NC, D.A.'s regularly charged homeowners when they shot intruders. There was a requirement under state law that the homeowner retreat. I am glad that the 2011 Castle Law in NC eliminated this absurd requirement.
 
2012-06-09 09:04:14 PM
STANJERGROUN! BLAM BLAM BLAM BLAM!
 
2012-06-09 09:06:03 PM

bugontherug: gblive: There is not misunderstanding about "the duty to retreat" in North Carolina before the Castle Law was put into place

Yes, there is. As I just explained, North Carolina already had a Castle Law which precluded the sorts of prosecutions you're positing. This article, which took about twenty seconds to find on Google, explains:

Link

So I'm willing to bet a pretty penny if in fact there were any prosecutions with facts remotely resembling the ones you describe, there were other wrinkles involved. Like the Louisiana case where a homeowner shot in the back of the head an intruder who had already surrendered and was on his knees.


Your link plainly says in the article - "Under the new law, the lawful occupant of a home, motor vehicle or workplace isn't required to retreat prior to using deadly force."
 
2012-06-09 09:09:37 PM

Bunnyhat: So what I'm getting is that if one of my neighbors comes on my property armed, I should shoot first and ask questions later.
Because apparently even if he is the one trespassing on my property, he can shoot me dead and be justified in it.

Fluffy, how about you grab one of the guns out of, I'm sure, your large collection and come on over.
I want to test this theory out.


Nice job posting that on a public forum. If you do shoot anyone they have premeditation and intent.
 
2012-06-09 09:14:38 PM

bugontherug: BarkingUnicorn: I missed that part. Might swing my vote, actually.

You make a good case.

Thank you. The prosecutor alleged in her probable cause affidavit that Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon after getting off the phone with police. This is a key fact, and I believe she's going to be able to put together a timeline which proves it.

But at the most basic level, the undisputed evidence shows we have an armed, angry, aggressive Zimmerman pissed off that "these assholes always get away," and an unarmed Trayvon who was so shaken up he tried to run away. I believe that's enough to find Zimmerman started the physical fight by itself.


I fervently hope you're right, and that the prosecutor has all her ducks in a nice row. I've never been on a jury, so I don't know what they're allowed to infer. But give me just a smidgin of room and I'll infer that Georgie does not deserve the SYG defense.

But is he guilty of second degree murder, or a lesser offense such as voluntary manslaughter? Are lesser offenses implied within the second degree murder charge, or is the prosecutor going for all-or-nothing?
 
2012-06-09 09:25:17 PM

fluffy2097: LasersHurt: fluffy2097: You know how you resolve those situations? "Woah dude! put away the gun and We'll turn down the music. Cool? Cool."

You might be surprised to hear this, but many of us don't like "The guy with the gun gets his way" as a philosophy.

You might not want to hear this, but the guy who taunts a man with a gun gets bullet in the brain pan.

/You turn down the music, he goes inside, you call the police and say you were assaulted with a deadly weapon, gun nut goes to jail. Let the cops deal with potentially getting shot your moron.


And the guy who puts a bullet in somebody's head for "tauntimg" him gets a cell for life and a whole lot of Bubba dick up his ass.
As you would say: cool.
 
2012-06-09 09:25:53 PM

gblive: Your link plainly says in the article - "Under the new law, the lawful occupant of a home, motor vehicle or workplace isn't required to retreat prior to using deadly force."


I really don't know if you're trolling me here or not. Under the old law, the lawful occupant of a home did not have to retreat before using deadly force. Under the new law, the lawful occupant of a home, motor vehicle, or workplace isn't required to retreat prior to using deadly force.

I don't think you're trolling. I think you're just passionate, and seizing on any ambiguity to support your case. North Carolina already had a Castle Doctrine which abrogated the duty to retreat in the home.


Durham man charged with murder in shooting of suspected burglar


This article links to a forum post, which in turn links to an article which is no longer available. Unfortunately, it is too vague to really discern why the homeowner was prosecuted.

Seagroves on trial for shooting intruder


Happily, your second link goes to an actual article, and gives us some information pertinent to why the homeowner was prosecuted. Specifically, this line: "Mr. Farrell... told the jury the teens were running away when they were shot." That would be one of those "wrinkles" I was talking about above.

Unfortunately, the article is Associated Press, which is famously right wing. So it doesn't give us anything useful, like the evidence Mr. Farrell used to justify that statement. But at the minimum, there was dispute over whether the homeowner was really defending himself, or set himself up as judge, jury, and executioner of some kids who attempted a minor burglary.
 
2012-06-09 09:37:06 PM

My Yali or Yours: If you carry a gun and are not a cop, you have a small penis. End of story.


farm5.staticflickr.com
 
2012-06-09 09:39:17 PM

bugontherug: I really don't know if you're trolling me here or not. Under the old law, the lawful occupant of a home did not have to retreat before using deadly force. Under the new law, the lawful occupant of a home, motor vehicle, or workplace isn't required to retreat prior to using deadly force.


I would urge you to read the law then. As a resident of this state for many years, I can tell you without question that homeowners in North Carolina were required to retreat before the Castle Law was passed in 2011. You can also Google the many past cases of homeowners being charged. I provided the text for two examples.

I posted the actual text of the 2011 state law and outlined the parts about retreating - including those in the article you posted. Can you you provide me a reference to the North Carolina law prior to 2011 that stated that you were not required to retreat in a home when an intruder broke into the premises - because a read of G.S. 14 prior to 2011 will quickly establish that a lawful occupant within his or her home was required to retreat.
 
2012-06-09 09:39:32 PM

BarkingUnicorn: fervently hope you're right, and that the prosecutor has all her ducks in a nice row. I've never been on a jury, so I don't know what they're allowed to infer. But give me just a smidgin of room and I'll infer that Georgie does not deserve the SYG defense.

But is he guilty of second degree murder, or a lesser offense such as voluntary manslaughter? Are lesser offenses implied within the second degree murder charge, or is the prosecutor going for all-or-nothing?


Some of Zimmerman's statements haven't been released to the press, and O'Mara has hinted he will seek to suppress them. O'Mara has indicated the statements are "highly prejudicial," which means he really thinks they damage Zimmerman's case. We've no way of knowing what they are, other than that O'Mara believes they're damaging. If they were anything like "I didn't give a rat's ass whether or not he lived or died, he was a punk criminal" that would definitely support 2nd degree murder. Unfortunately, whatever he really said probably isn't so deliciously incriminating.

But to be clear the only real difference between what Zimmerman has been charged with, and voluntary manslaughter, is degree of recklessness. There's no bright line between the two where you can say "this is clearly one, and this is clearly the other one." But I do think what we have, plus whatever hasn't been published, supports her charging decision. I don't think she's overcharged to bargain down, if that's what you're asking. Though I think with Zimmerman's credibility so seriously damaged now, his lawyer is ultimately going to recommend a plea, that will probably be to voluntary manslaughter.

One more thing: the fact that the prosecutor hasn't released those statements tells us two things:

1) She's not 100% sure they'll be admissible, and she doesn't want to give Zimmerman a grounds for appeal, and

2) Her prosecution is proceeding ethically and competently. I have some confidence justice will be served here.
 
2012-06-09 09:44:35 PM

sirgrim: Bunnyhat: So what I'm getting is that if one of my neighbors comes on my property armed, I should shoot first and ask questions later.
Because apparently even if he is the one trespassing on my property, he can shoot me dead and be justified in it.

Fluffy, how about you grab one of the guns out of, I'm sure, your large collection and come on over.
I want to test this theory out.

Nice job posting that on a public forum. If you do shoot anyone they have premeditation and intent.



Sure.

I'm pretty sure the first thing police ask for is all of the websites I post on.
 
2012-06-09 09:50:18 PM
There's no sense of proportion in justice anymore. Was there ever? What we need is a "you'd better be right" clause. We can debate whether or not you have a duty to retreat, but if you don't, aren't you accepting a risk? Ignorance of the law is supposed to be no excuse, right?
 
2012-06-09 09:50:25 PM
That guy is an idiot. He is the reason why we shouldn't have guns. He has proven to be a dumbass and therefore the United States should not use guns.
 
2012-06-09 09:59:22 PM

gblive: bugontherug: I really don't know if you're trolling me here or not. Under the old law, the lawful occupant of a home did not have to retreat before using deadly force. Under the new law, the lawful occupant of a home, motor vehicle, or workplace isn't required to retreat prior to using deadly force.

I would urge you to read the law then. As a resident of this state for many years, I can tell you without question that homeowners in North Carolina were required to retreat before the Castle Law was passed in 2011. You can also Google the many past cases of homeowners being charged. I provided the text for two examples.


Okay, let's start with the language you posted. The language you quoted first is not statutory text. It is Wikipedia's description of the law. I'm referring to this language here:

On December 1, 2011, North Carolina's new law regarding the use of deadly force against an intruder took effect, extending the use of deadly force to motor vehicles and places of work. The law also eliminates the duty to retreat and provides protection from criminal and civil liability.


That language is poorly written because it is ambiguous, but as we shall see, basically consistent with the article I linked to above.

Here's the actual statutory text you posted:

"(f) A lawful occupant within his or her home, motor vehicle, or workplace does not have a duty to retreat from an intruder in the circumstances described in this section."


This language does not establish what the law was prior to the Dec. 1st amendments. It only tells us what the law is now, after those amendments.

Now, here's language from the article I linked to, which you disregarded. This article was written on November 28th, three days before the revised law took effect on December 1st. Again, this has an unfortunately ambiguity in its opening sentence where it refers to the "new 'Castle Doctrine Law.'" but that ambiguity is resolved by the text I've underlined.

North Carolina's new "Castle Doctrine" law, which addresses certain circumstances under which a person can legally shoot or use other deadly force against another, takes effect Thursday.

North Carolina's current Castle Doctrine only applies to homes, but under the new law it also applies to vehicles and places of work.


On Nov. 28th, North Carolina's then current Castle Doctrine already applied to homes. What the Dec. 1st law did, then, was expand the already extant Castle Doctrine for homes to apply to vehicles and workplaces. The Castle Doctrine by definition abrogates the duty to retreat inside the home. So as of Nov. 28th, there was no duty to retreat from inside the home.
 
2012-06-09 10:02:28 PM
As to the cases you posted:

One didn't have enough information to make heads or tails of, and the other one had a dispute over whether the property owner was defending himself, or executing fleeing petty burglars.
 
2012-06-09 10:06:34 PM
I should be able to shoot anyone I want, any time.
Otherwise, Obama the Socialist Muslim is trying to take away my guns and evil-ution and illegals.
 
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