Do you have adblock enabled?
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 47
    More: Dumbass, Houston, unincorporated areas, concealed handgun, Baytown, Grant Scheiner  
•       •       •

8388 clicks; posted to Main » on 09 Jun 2012 at 6:07 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-06-09 04:04:06 PM  
5 votes:
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 03:34:26 PM  
4 votes:
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 06:54:26 PM  
3 votes:

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.
2012-06-09 04:33:47 PM  
3 votes:
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 04:14:34 PM  
3 votes:

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 08:54:52 PM  
2 votes:
If you carry a gun and are not a cop, you have a small penis. End of story.
2012-06-09 07:14:36 PM  
2 votes:

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 frightened, that moments before the confrontation, Trayvon asked "why are you following me, that Zimmerman did not answer Trayvon's question, but instead bellowed "what are you doing around here," and that after that, Trayvon said "get off, get off." I emphasize the word "are" there, because if the girlfriend's credible statement is believed, then it adds still more to the inference Zimmerman continued to follow Trayvon after talking to the police.

All of this taken together paints the picture and permits a reasonable jury to find that an armed, angry, aggressive Zimmerman set out to detain Trayvon, and began the confrontation by in fact physically restraining him.

There are no "assumptions" here. Only facts, evidence, and stated inferences therefrom. It is plenty to dispute Zimmerman's claim, and more than enough for a fair minded jury to convict.
2012-06-09 06:45:21 PM  
2 votes:

gblive: Let me say that "Castle Laws" and "Stand Your Ground" laws are needed. Until North Carolina passed the Castle Law a few months back, if someone broke into my house and I shot them then I would be charged by the District Attorney and also open for obscene civil suits from the criminals family.


I knew I was forgetting something in my earlier post. Until Castle Law/Doctrine & SYG started being passed by various states (one of the common parts of it being that the homeowner can't be sued by someone/his estate if the person was at the time committing an illegal act) it was generally somewhat common for the homeowner to be sued by the robber for the "grievous bodily injury" inflicted upon him. Naturally most juries laughed him out of court but the homeowner was still out many many thousands of dollars defending himself.

For the most part they are very good laws with sound reasoning behind them. As with many things though, the media reports/sensationalizes upon those instances that either don't apply to begin with or, as in this case, massively quote some nutjob who doesn't know what he's talking about. The end result being that, as evidenced here, people think that SYG means you can go out hunting.

In this case though, this asshat needs to be tossed onto Texas' busy death row awaiting his turn on the gurney.
2012-06-09 06:32:54 PM  
2 votes:
Rodriguez needs to be convicted of murder. The idea that you can go over to someone else's property armed, deliberately confront them, and "stand your ground" has no support under the law.

I should also not that Texas has a "Castle Law" not a "Stand Your Ground" law. You need to be defending your home, business, or automobile for the Castle Law to apply in Texas. Rodriguez attempting to claim any type of rights under Texas law is absurd.

Let me say that "Castle Laws" and "Stand Your Ground" laws are needed. Until North Carolina passed the Castle Law a few months back, if someone broke into my house and I shot them then I would be charged by the District Attorney and also open for obscene civil suits from the criminals family.
2012-06-09 05:47:43 PM  
2 votes:
YOU CANNOT PROVOKE A FIGHT AND THEN CLAIM SELF-DEFENSE WHEN YOU KILL SOMEONE
2012-06-09 04:10:57 PM  
2 votes:

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 04:09:11 PM  
2 votes:

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 04:07:34 PM  
2 votes:

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 03:24:31 PM  
2 votes:
I read about this, this guy needs seerious jail time.


He also brings out the raving gun-nuts who are nuttier than squirrel poops.
2012-06-10 04:14:41 AM  
1 votes:
Dispatcher: 911, What's your emergency?
Shooter: Um, yeah. I just shot a guy...in his own home. Um...he...I mean, I...I was standing my ground.
Dispatcher: That's sounds pretty sketchy.
Shooter: He was black.
Dispatcher: Oh, OK then. Have a nice day.
2012-06-09 10:07:50 PM  
1 votes:

Bunnyhat: I'm pretty sure the first thing police ask for is all of the websites I post on.


It's the lawyers you should be worried about finding it. Online posts are the first thing everyone finds when googling around. Based on your fark postings I could tell you your own full name, it wouldn't be very hard to do the same thing backwards.
2012-06-09 07:56:58 PM  
1 votes:
This is so clearly NOT a stand your ground/castle type situation that i am horrified the defense is even allowed.
2012-06-09 07:31:30 PM  
1 votes:

fluffy2097: gblive: He was standing on their property in their driveway. He was asked to leave. Rodriguez was trespassing and breaking the law.

How do you ask someone to turn down the music without knocking on their front door?


I would go to their front door unarmed and politely ask them to turn down the music. If they told me to leave their property then I would leave their property and call the police about the noise when I got home. If I stayed on their property, after being asked to leave, then I would be trespassing and breaking the law.

Very simple.
2012-06-09 07:23:57 PM  
1 votes:

LasersHurt: It's the victim's fault they were shot by a dickhead who felt it was appropriate to approach with a gun. Gotcha.

/ridiculous


It's the victims fault they decided to pick a fight with an armed crazy person.

It's the shooters fault they ended up dead.

It's really, really hard for me to expect any other outcome from picking a fight with a crazy person with a gun.
2012-06-09 07:18:18 PM  
1 votes:
This line from another more fully detailed article is classic.

"Although he shouts several times that the music is too loud, it is not heard on the recording"

// Sounds like he is over there under totally false pretenses.
2012-06-09 07:12:04 PM  
1 votes:

LasersHurt: fluffy2097: LasersHurt: No, no it's not.

yeah. It is. The man may be mentally ill, but what set him shooting was people not turning the radio down.

I would have assumed it was the part where he thought he could address any situation with a handgun.

If you don't have a culture saying it's okay to take a lethal weapon into every situation, you'd probably end up with less deaths.


Next time you have a gun pointed in your face, dare em to shoot you. See how much your laws and morality and what is right will help you. Because all the laws in the world wont stop a crazy motherfarker from shooting you.

If someone is brandishing a gun at you, you get that gun pointed elsewhere with any means possible. You de-escalate the situation, then once the pistols have been put away you call the cops and let them handle the rest.

CHALLENGING a man with a gun gets you killed. Period.

/you people are way to caught up on "how things should work" as opposed to "how shiat goes down in real life"
2012-06-09 07:01:39 PM  
1 votes:

fluffy2097: This is me not giving any farks. The party goers started it with their loud shiat music. They escalated it by not turning it down, and then they sealed their own death warrant by saying "I'm gonna get my gun and shoot you back!"

If you cant turn down the farking music when someone comes out of their house with a gun and tells you to turn it the fark down, you deserve to be shot.

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

Problem farking over.

But we all know that's not what happened. These assholes were partying till balls o clock in the morning, playing shiatty rap music hooting and hollering and being obnoxious farking drunks. No doubt this is a regular occurrence for them, and there is no doubt in my mind that they haven't done this in the past.

Some people are only capable of learning through high velocity lead poisoning.

How many of those loud ass farks are going to throw another party any time soon? hmm?


Maybe you missed all the earlier press about Rodriguez regularly threatening everyone in the neighborhood with a gun. He threatened one homeowner over his grass being too long.... and others for many other perceived reasons. Unfortunately the trial judge is not allowing evidence from over 20 neighbors about their previous run-ins with the armed nutcase Rodriguez.

I can only gather that the entire neighborhood will be glad to see Rodriguez locked up permanently.

// Do you think that it is proper for my neighbor to come to my door pointing a gun at me demanding that I mow my lawn because it is 4 inches high and the town law says it can only be 3.5 inches high? Well in your case - I guess you would simply view this as a lesson I should learn through "high velocity lead poisoning".
2012-06-09 07:01:38 PM  
1 votes:

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.
2012-06-09 06:59:10 PM  
1 votes:

fluffy2097: is, but the guy who taunts a man with a gun gets bullet in the brain pan.


So it's cool to kill people when they taunt you? If the guy didn't like the music being so loud, he could've called the cops.
2012-06-09 06:57:57 PM  
1 votes:

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.


I feel like you're treating the symptoms and not the cause.
2012-06-09 06:56:49 PM  
1 votes:
I'm a fan of the castle doctrine, but this guy went well beyond that. He went into someones house, started a fight where he was clearly outmatched, and when he couldn't win by those means, just decided to start killing. That's not defending yourself, that's just plain out killing for killing.
2012-06-09 06:55:20 PM  
1 votes:

Callous: The problem occurs when you insert the word reasonably. Everyone can define that differently. Is it reasonable for me to climb out my bedroom window and leave my kids in the house with whoever is breaking in? What if I run into the intruder and shoot him on my way to their bedrooms? Will I got to prison because I didn't climb out the window? If the law doesn't make an exception for me going to get my kids then by the law I have just murdered him and will go to prison.


I guess that's up to a jury. I would find it quite reasonable to stay if you were protecting your children, even if you could yourself retreat. It's not unreasonable to protect others. No jury in the world would convict you if you were protecting your child. What is reasonable, though, would be to let a burglar who sees the gun and wants to run go ahead and run. Call the cops and let them sort it all out. Shooting them in the back while they are running and posing no threat is NOT reasonable. I agree everyone has different standards, but with the jury system that we have here, I think people would generally agree for the most part on what is reasonable and what isn't.
2012-06-09 06:53:37 PM  
1 votes:
You know, this is really sad, people will complain loudly about teenagers playing their music too loud, or partying or whatnot, but they will absolutely refuse to get involved. I'm a member of my local Citizens Group Patrol and we will get calls over the scanner on this all the time. We can usually show up before the LEO and assess the situation and try to get it under control before manpower from the local PD needs to get involved by entering the house directly and removing the power source for the music, whether it be a fuse or batteries or a power cord. We find that once the music is under control, the party will settle down and disperse.
2012-06-09 06:42:41 PM  
1 votes:

nekom: 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.


The problem occurs when you insert the word reasonably. Everyone can define that differently. Is it reasonable for me to climb out my bedroom window and leave my kids in the house with whoever is breaking in? What if I run into the intruder and shoot him on my way to their bedrooms? Will I got to prison because I didn't climb out the window? If the law doesn't make an exception for me going to get my kids then by the law I have just murdered him and will go to prison.

I don't want some prosecutor that's trying to make a name for themselves putting me in prison or making me spend every dime I have ever earned to defend myself because I refused to abandon my kids to an intruder.

I have a pump shotgun as well and I keep it with no shell in the chamber. Hopefully if someone is in my house the sound of me chambering the first one will change their mind about being there.
2012-06-09 06:31:53 PM  
1 votes:
If someone barged onto my property and knocked on the door with a firearm, I would consider them a hostile intruder on my property and promptly call 911 and retrieve my own firearm. Seems like Rodriguez is the one who should have gotten shot in this situation, he deserves major jail time.
2012-06-09 06:28:27 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:24:18 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:22:12 PM  
1 votes:
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 06:17:06 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:16:11 PM  
1 votes:
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 06:14:56 PM  
1 votes:
It doesn't work if you invite yourself over.
2012-06-09 06:14:40 PM  
1 votes:

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 06:14:39 PM  
1 votes:
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 06:05:10 PM  
1 votes:

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 05:34:45 PM  
1 votes:
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 04:53:03 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:51:19 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:41:46 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:40:52 PM  
1 votes:

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 04:17:42 PM  
1 votes:
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 04:00:18 PM  
1 votes:
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 03:59:49 PM  
1 votes:

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.
 
Displayed 47 of 47 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report