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.

(Jacksonville.com)   Apparently, if you get into a fight with a co-worker, get your gun from your vehicle and shoot at him across rush hour traffic, "Stand Your Ground" will not be a successful defense at your trial. Who knew?   (jacksonville.com ) divider line
    More: Followup, Jacksonville Taco Bell, stand your ground, rush hour traffic, Gordon Agenor, 2nd amendment, Jacksonville Sheriff's Office, assault weapons, witness testimony  
•       •       •

6445 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 Sep 2012 at 9:36 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-09-10 06:21:41 AM  
www.rojaksite.com

Perhaps if he'd tasted the rainbow?
 
2012-09-10 06:47:29 AM  
FFS, how many times must I remind you?

Stand your ground laws do not protect you if you are a black male. You WILL be going to jail
 
2012-09-10 06:50:52 AM  
Not his public defender, it seems.
 
2012-09-10 06:51:40 AM  
Who's missing from the politics troll brigade? That's our perp.
 
2012-09-10 06:53:58 AM  

doglover: Who's missing from the politics troll brigade? That's our perp public defender.


ftfm
 
2012-09-10 08:15:01 AM  
I'm OK with this outcome.

No laws in existence authorize a citizen to initiate a deadly encounter without reasonable belief that one's life is in danger. Nor are there any laws that authorize the continued use of deadly force by a citizen after the danger goes away.

Even if the guy's fear for his life during the fist-fight was reasonable, no amount of legal wrangling excuses shooting at someone who is trying to get away from you.

Gotta give the guy's lawyer credit for chutzpah though. It's practically self-evident that this wasn't a case covered by Stand Your Ground but he tried anyway. I'm willing to bet the perpetrator wasn't thinking about Stand Your Ground (or any other law) when he decided to shoot at the guy running across the street.
 
2012-09-10 09:30:30 AM  
He's Black?
 
2012-09-10 09:41:07 AM  
Stand Your Ground only applies to White People.
 
2012-09-10 09:41:08 AM  
We really don't have much information about why the altercation occurred. It could have been ongoing workplace harassment that finally culminated in this terrible incident.

But mandatory sentencing laws are going to see to it that this guy will be useless to society for the rest of his life.
 
2012-09-10 09:42:28 AM  
Black People Problems.
 
2012-09-10 09:42:34 AM  
Drop the Chalupa
 
2012-09-10 09:42:49 AM  
coco ebert: He's Black?

As you can see, some liberals are also retarded. It's just not the Teabaggers!!
 
2012-09-10 09:44:26 AM  

madgonad: Stand Your Ground only applies to White People.


Psst... Zimmerman isn't white...

/maybe he should have tried planting skittles on him...
 
2012-09-10 09:44:53 AM  
Wow
 
2012-09-10 09:48:12 AM  
Is the dumbass tag taking the day off?
 
2012-09-10 09:49:23 AM  

ComicBookGuy: coco ebert: He's Black?

As you can see, some liberals are also retarded. It's just not the Teabaggers!!


Or, you know, this is Fark and it's possible, just possible, that we're not entirely serious.
 
2012-09-10 09:49:37 AM  
This is an outrage! Defend and extend Stand your Ground!
 
2012-09-10 09:50:12 AM  
I don't blame him for trying. Stand your ground worked for someone who chased after his "attacker" and shot him in the back.

Link
 
2012-09-10 09:52:34 AM  
Lulz.

"Stand your ground" is for when some tard is burglarizing your house and you meet him in your underwear with a shotgun.
 
2012-09-10 09:56:04 AM  
The liberals told him it would protect him.
 
2012-09-10 09:56:12 AM  
Seems relatively clear cut to me. Not a case where this defense would work. It does seem like the defense attorney trying to use anything possible as he had nothing else. Witnesses, broad daylight, physical evidence, etc. Maybe the prosecution wasn't going to accept a plea or appeals for leniency (not that it seems likely any would be forthcoming), so this was the last gasp effort.
 
2012-09-10 09:58:19 AM  
OTOH, this article seems like the perfect use of firearms in self-defense. This was linked to in the same article as the one related to this thread.
 
2012-09-10 10:10:01 AM  
What a shame...he didn't even collect any loot.
 
2012-09-10 10:16:25 AM  
To be fair, here in Florida, he had about a 50/50 chance.
 
2012-09-10 10:17:45 AM  

Dynascape: Lulz.

"Stand your ground" is for when some tard blah guy is burglarizing your house standing anywhere you don't want him to stand and you meet leave your house and go find him in your underwear with a shotgun.


More accurate.
 
2012-09-10 10:18:19 AM  
Stand your ground needs to go away. In Ohio, you have the obligation to retreat. If you are pursued and threatened, you are justified to defend yourself. And it works just fine.
 
2012-09-10 10:27:00 AM  

Whole Wheat: Stand your ground needs to go away. In Ohio, you have the obligation to retreat. If you are pursued and threatened, you are justified to defend yourself. And it works just fine.


You are correct. An individual being threatened with violence will always be able to infallibly ascertain whether an attempt to escape without injury will succeed.
 
2012-09-10 10:32:31 AM  
This is the anti-gun liberal media's fault for using the term "stand your ground" incorrectly, on purpose, for months in relation to you-know-who, making sounds like it's a get out of jail free card for any psycho who shoots someone in cold blood.
 
2012-09-10 10:35:51 AM  

protectyourlimbs: madgonad: Stand Your Ground only applies to White People.

Psst... Zimmerman isn't white...

/maybe he should have tried planting skittles on him...


Reading isn't your specialty, is it.

The article came out AFTER Zimmerman, but talks about similar cases - especially one in Georgia (which also has Stand Your Ground) in which a black home owner was attacked by a white man with a knife that had previously threatened him. He shot the guy, and got life in prison.
 
2012-09-10 10:37:29 AM  

protectyourlimbs: Psst... Zimmerman isn't white...


And Zimmerman is white. Hispanic is not a race, it is an ethnicity. There are both black and white Hispanics. Zimmerman is a white Hispanic man.
 
2012-09-10 10:43:23 AM  
Stand your ground is a good law. It's not standing your ground if you go out and get a weapon then come back, when you chase someone down or when you shoot someone who is fleeing. Just because the defense attorney tried to use the stand your ground defense when it didn't apply is no reason to disparage a good law.
 
2012-09-10 10:44:32 AM  

ComicBookGuy: coco ebert: He's Black?

As you can see, some liberals are also retarded. It's just not the Teabaggers!!


All blacks are liberals?
 
2012-09-10 10:49:21 AM  

madgonad: protectyourlimbs: madgonad: Stand Your Ground only applies to White People.

Psst... Zimmerman isn't white...

/maybe he should have tried planting skittles on him...

Reading isn't your specialty, is it.

The article came out AFTER Zimmerman, but talks about similar cases - especially one in Georgia (which also has Stand Your Ground) in which a black home owner was attacked by a white man with a knife that had previously threatened him. He shot the guy, and got life in prison.


Georgia having a similar law to the one in Florida, doesn't make the two situations identical. It may not be apples and oranges, but it's definitely apples and tomatoes at least.
 
2012-09-10 10:49:32 AM  
Brown ran across Atlantic when he saw the weapon, and Agenor fired at him three times "during broad daylight and rush hour traffic," prosecutors said. Agenor said he was trying to "wound" Brown.

At least four lanes of traffic, two shoulders, maybe some parking lanes and likely two sidewalks with a moving target -

surprising there aren't a few dead.
 
2012-09-10 10:50:51 AM  
*reads TFT*

Derp factor 10, Mr. Sulu.
 
2012-09-10 10:51:45 AM  

Dimensio: Whole Wheat: Stand your ground needs to go away. In Ohio, you have the obligation to retreat. If you are pursued and threatened, you are justified to defend yourself. And it works just fine.

You are correct. An individual being threatened with violence will always be able to infallibly ascertain whether an attempt to escape without injury will succeed.


It is perfectly reasonable to force people to flee from their own house when they are in danger. Otherwise a burglar could get hurt.
 
2012-09-10 10:57:47 AM  

Wert789: Stand your ground is a good law. It's not standing your ground if you go out and get a weapon then come back, when you chase someone down or when you shoot someone who is fleeing. Just because the defense attorney tried to use the stand your ground defense when it didn't apply is no reason to disparage a good law.


I'll admit that there are certain circumstances where it can save otherwise innocent people from harm, but I think that the way it's written is far too general and is thus used by people who are seeking a confrontation. IIRC, there was a guy who was upset about the noise level at a neighbor's party, so instead of asking nicely for them to quiet down or just calling the police with a noise complaint, he got his gun and went to the house and started being very confrontational with the neighbor. The neighbor, predictably, acted in a confrontational manner in response, so the guy drew his gun and shot him. Again, if I'm remembering this correctly, he wasn't prosecuted.
 
2012-09-10 11:08:17 AM  
Maybe he needed a kill'n..oh wait, it wasn't Texas.
 
2012-09-10 11:09:04 AM  

Quaker: Wert789: Stand your ground is a good law. It's not standing your ground if you go out and get a weapon then come back, when you chase someone down or when you shoot someone who is fleeing. Just because the defense attorney tried to use the stand your ground defense when it didn't apply is no reason to disparage a good law.

I'll admit that there are certain circumstances where it can save otherwise innocent people from harm, but I think that the way it's written is far too general and is thus used by people who are seeking a confrontation. IIRC, there was a guy who was upset about the noise level at a neighbor's party, so instead of asking nicely for them to quiet down or just calling the police with a noise complaint, he got his gun and went to the house and started being very confrontational with the neighbor. The neighbor, predictably, acted in a confrontational manner in response, so the guy drew his gun and shot him. Again, if I'm remembering this correctly, he wasn't prosecuted.



That was the Texas case of Paul Rodriguez in Texas and he WAS convicted of murder.

A Texas jury rejected a retired firefighter's claim that the state's stand-your-ground law gave him the right to shoot and kill an unarmed neighbor for allegedly playing loud music during a party.

The jury sided with the prosecutors and voted to convict Rodriguez of murder


And


HOUSTON (June 27, 2012)-Retired firefighter Paul Rodriguez, 46, who argued that the state's version of a stand-your-ground law allowed him to shoot a neighbor to death after an argument about a noisy party, was sentenced Wednesday to 40 years in prison for murder.
 
2012-09-10 11:19:11 AM  

umad: Dimensio: Whole Wheat: Stand your ground needs to go away. In Ohio, you have the obligation to retreat. If you are pursued and threatened, you are justified to defend yourself. And it works just fine.

You are correct. An individual being threatened with violence will always be able to infallibly ascertain whether an attempt to escape without injury will succeed.

It is perfectly reasonable to force people to flee from their own house when they are in danger. Otherwise a burglar could get hurt.


People are more valuable than property.

Stand your ground is horrible because it's entirely possible that both sides can use it as a justification. If you have a duty to retreat, it's pretty rare that both sides would be unable to retreat.
 
2012-09-10 11:32:14 AM  
The fact that someone can even attempt this defense in this situation, and that it's news that it didn't work, is pretty indicative of how bad the law is.
 
2012-09-10 11:32:29 AM  

Whole Wheat: Stand your ground needs to go away. In Ohio, you have the obligation to retreat. If you are pursued and threatened, you are justified to defend yourself. And it works just fine.


So in Ohio as long as you can outrun your wife and kids you personally have nothing to worry about. Duty to Retreat is requiring a victim to paint a target on their back and die tired.
 
2012-09-10 11:33:00 AM  

The Jami Turman Fan Club: umad: Dimensio: Whole Wheat: Stand your ground needs to go away. In Ohio, you have the obligation to retreat. If you are pursued and threatened, you are justified to defend yourself. And it works just fine.

You are correct. An individual being threatened with violence will always be able to infallibly ascertain whether an attempt to escape without injury will succeed.

It is perfectly reasonable to force people to flee from their own house when they are in danger. Otherwise a burglar could get hurt.

People are more valuable than property.

Stand your ground is horrible because it's entirely possible that both sides can use it as a justification. If you have a duty to retreat, it's pretty rare that both sides would be unable to retreat.


An individual who has illegally forced entry into my home with criminal intent is in fact substantially less valuable than my property.
 
2012-09-10 11:36:28 AM  

Moosecakes: The fact that someone can even attempt this defense in this situation, and that it's news that it didn't work, is pretty indicative of how bad the law is.


You are correct: that the law does not legalize reckless endangerment demonstrates a failing of the law.
 
2012-09-10 11:40:12 AM  

Quaker: Wert789: Stand your ground is a good law. It's not standing your ground if you go out and get a weapon then come back, when you chase someone down or when you shoot someone who is fleeing. Just because the defense attorney tried to use the stand your ground defense when it didn't apply is no reason to disparage a good law.

I'll admit that there are certain circumstances where it can save otherwise innocent people from harm, but I think that the way it's written is far too general and is thus used by people who are seeking a confrontation. IIRC, there was a guy who was upset about the noise level at a neighbor's party, so instead of asking nicely for them to quiet down or just calling the police with a noise complaint, he got his gun and went to the house and started being very confrontational with the neighbor. The neighbor, predictably, acted in a confrontational manner in response, so the guy drew his gun and shot him. Again, if I'm remembering this correctly, he wasn't prosecuted.


Before you claim that it is too general and needs to be changed it might be a good idea to, you know. READ what the law actually says instead of being mislead by a bunch of people who just might have an agenda. Google is your friend and the law is not that long or convoluted. Less than 10 minutes will put you ahead of 90% of the people who have an opinion and it will be all your own.
 
2012-09-10 11:45:21 AM  

Moosecakes: The fact that someone can even attempt this defense in this situation, and that it's news that it didn't work, is pretty indicative of how bad the law is.


This may be the single dumbest thing I have ever read in my life.
 
2012-09-10 11:46:06 AM  
single
 
2012-09-10 11:52:04 AM  

Whole Wheat: Stand your ground needs to go away. In Ohio, you have the obligation to retreat. If you are pursued and threatened, you are justified to defend yourself. And it works just fine.


Ohio is a castle doctrine state, and forgetting to bring that up invariably brings out the derp. Duty to retreat only applies in public areas. In fact, only a few states have weak or no Castle Doctrine at all, and most people are surprised that California isn't one of them.
 
2012-09-10 11:52:33 AM  

coco ebert: ComicBookGuy: coco ebert: He's Black?

As you can see, some liberals are also retarded. It's just not the Teabaggers!!

Or, you know, this is Fark and it's possible, just possible, that we're not entirely serious.


Jokes aren't allowed in gun threads. Just hyperbole and strawmen.
 
2012-09-10 11:54:16 AM  

The Jami Turman Fan Club: it's pretty rare that both sides would be unable to retreat.


Duty to retreat presumes that you've both got the ability and the opportunity to break off the encounter. Where as a mugger operates around the concept of not letting you go until you've been deprived of your stuff. A burglar enters your property and DTR displaces you, not him. A person bent on hurting you isn't just going to let you walk away.

I prefer SYG because I believe I have the right to be where I am. The person threatening to assault me or steal my things does not.
 
2012-09-10 11:57:04 AM  

foxyshadis: In fact, only a few states have weak or no Castle Doctrine at all, and most people are surprised that California isn't one of them.


California is...schizophrenic when it comes to gun laws. Or...perhaps they simply had very liberal gun laws and have become more and more restrictive, while still having not thrown off their old freedoms.
 
2012-09-10 11:59:36 AM  
*reads article*

*sees pictures of retard*

*opens thread*

*scrolls down to comment box without reading anything*

*predicts there will be some dumb ass that makes a reference to SYG not working for black people in the Boobiess*
 
2012-09-10 12:01:51 PM  
well there goes my plans this afternoon
 
2012-09-10 12:07:18 PM  

Pfactor: I'm OK with this outcome.

No laws in existence authorize a citizen to initiate a deadly encounter without reasonable belief that one's life is in danger. Nor are there any laws that authorize the continued use of deadly force by a citizen after the danger goes away.

Even if the guy's fear for his life during the fist-fight was reasonable, no amount of legal wrangling excuses shooting at someone who is trying to get away from you.

Gotta give the guy's lawyer credit for chutzpah though. It's practically self-evident that this wasn't a case covered by Stand Your Ground but he tried anyway. I'm willing to bet the perpetrator wasn't thinking about Stand Your Ground (or any other law) when he decided to shoot at the guy running across the street.


Well, I'm not OK with this outcome at all.

If he had actually killed the guy during the fistfight, it would likely have been manslaughter.

That's a MAXIMUM sentence of 15 years.

20 years minimum when nobody got hurt is absolutely INSANE. If he'd been a rich white guy, he'd probably have gotten a ticket for unlawful discharge of a firearm within city limits.

Now the circumstances suggest that it should be a felony, but a sentence of a year and a day with all but 30 days suspended would make sense here. This bad law is going to cost the taxpayers close to half a million dollars (probably more given inflation over the next 20 years) in this ONE case.
 
2012-09-10 12:14:37 PM  

DarkVader: Now the circumstances suggest that it should be a felony, but a sentence of a year and a day with all but 30 days suspended would make sense here.


30 days for attempted murder. Sounds about right.
 
2012-09-10 12:23:29 PM  

umad: DarkVader: Now the circumstances suggest that it should be a felony, but a sentence of a year and a day with all but 30 days suspended would make sense here.

30 days for attempted murder. Sounds about right.


It wasn't attempted murder. He wasn't shooting to kill, that makes a difference.

So yeah, sounds about right. A felony so he loses his gun rights, and a bit of time in jail to let him know it wasn't acceptable. Nobody got hurt - that's the important thing here.
 
2012-09-10 12:26:21 PM  

stevarooni: foxyshadis: In fact, only a few states have weak or no Castle Doctrine at all, and most people are surprised that California isn't one of them.

California is...schizophrenic when it comes to gun laws. Or...perhaps they simply had very liberal gun laws and have become more and more restrictive, while still having not thrown off their old freedoms.


Very schizo in a lot of ways, since half the state's population is ultra-Liberal and the other half ultra-Conservative. (Capitalizing since neither label has anything to do with the actual words anymore.) Every law or regulation ends up getting tilted to one extreme or the other; I'm amazed that the non-partisan redistricting actually passed and is working as intended.
 
2012-09-10 12:30:27 PM  
I'm going to miss his commercials.

photos1.blogger.com

assets.creativity-online.com
 
2012-09-10 12:32:38 PM  

Wert789: Stand your ground is a good law. It's not standing your ground if you go out and get a weapon then come back, when you chase someone down or when you shoot someone who is fleeing. Just because the defense attorney tried to use the stand your ground defense when it didn't apply is no reason to disparage a good law.


Well, as far as Florida goes the Stand your Ground law is not a good law at all. Some people have gotten off when they went and retrieved their weapon. In the article I posted a guy started the fight and got off.

Here are some more examples to make you sick to your stomach.

Link
 
2012-09-10 12:36:58 PM  

DarkVader: It wasn't attempted murder. He wasn't shooting to kill, that makes a difference.


Guns are deadly weapons unless you're using non-lethal ammunition, or firing in anther direction entirely. If you fire at someone, you're trying to kill them, even if you're not trying to kill them. Your ignorance of the matter not withstanding.
 
2012-09-10 12:40:57 PM  

wildstarr: Here are some more examples to make you sick to your stomach.

Link


FTFA: One man killed two unarmed people and walked out of jail.

Dude is attacked by two people and defends himself. Seeing as how being "unarmed" doesn't prevent human beings from committing homicide, that fact is insufficient. From that bare statement...it might be perfectly okay. There seems to be a bias against providing some very relevant information in that article, Wildstarr.
 
2012-09-10 12:51:21 PM  

The Jami Turman Fan Club: umad: Dimensio: Whole Wheat: Stand your ground needs to go away. In Ohio, you have the obligation to retreat. If you are pursued and threatened, you are justified to defend yourself. And it works just fine.

You are correct. An individual being threatened with violence will always be able to infallibly ascertain whether an attempt to escape without injury will succeed.

It is perfectly reasonable to force people to flee from their own house when they are in danger. Otherwise a burglar could get hurt.

People are more valuable than property.

Stand your ground is horrible because it's entirely possible that both sides can use it as a justification. If you have a duty to retreat, it's pretty rare that both sides would be unable to retreat.


Yup. In fact SYG might have used a "well, at least you have a duty to NOT CHASE THEM DOWN", but they didn't.

SYG typically has some pretty loose terms, it was basically written by the gun lobby. The idea that chasing someone down and shooting them isn't as legally absurd as it sounds.
 
2012-09-10 12:57:39 PM  

protectyourlimbs: madgonad: Stand Your Ground only applies to White People.

Psst... Zimmerman isn't white...

/maybe he should have tried planting skittles on him...


It was an honest mistake, Zimmerman is very light-skinned. When they found out he was Hispanic, they corrected this oversight.
 
2012-09-10 01:16:28 PM  

Whole Wheat: Stand your ground needs to go away. In Ohio, you have the obligation to retreat. If you are pursued and threatened, you are justified to defend yourself. And it works just fine.


Not entirely true. Also, I'm sorry, but if you break into my house you're dead. That you broke in tells me you aren't there to deliver flowers. It does tell me you have bad intentions and I'm not going to be thinking about whether or not I can crawl through a window and "retreat".
 
2012-09-10 01:20:35 PM  

hdhale: Whole Wheat: Stand your ground needs to go away. In Ohio, you have the obligation to retreat. If you are pursued and threatened, you are justified to defend yourself. And it works just fine.

Not entirely true. Also, I'm sorry, but if you break into my house you're dead. That you broke in tells me you aren't there to deliver flowers. It does tell me you have bad intentions and I'm not going to be thinking about whether or not I can crawl through a window and "retreat".


Sorry, I wasn't trolling or being retarded. Ohio also has castle laws. You do not have to retreat from your home, but you are expected to attempt retreat from confrontation elsewhere before taking a life.
 
2012-09-10 01:26:33 PM  

foxyshadis: Whole Wheat: Stand your ground needs to go away. In Ohio, you have the obligation to retreat. If you are pursued and threatened, you are justified to defend yourself. And it works just fine.

Ohio is a castle doctrine state, and forgetting to bring that up invariably brings out the derp. Duty to retreat only applies in public areas. In fact, only a few states have weak or no Castle Doctrine at all, and most people are surprised that California isn't one of them.


I was AFK for a while. Thanks for posting this.
 
2012-09-10 02:25:51 PM  

Whole Wheat: hdhale: Whole Wheat: Stand your ground needs to go away. In Ohio, you have the obligation to retreat. If you are pursued and threatened, you are justified to defend yourself. And it works just fine.

Not entirely true. Also, I'm sorry, but if you break into my house you're dead. That you broke in tells me you aren't there to deliver flowers. It does tell me you have bad intentions and I'm not going to be thinking about whether or not I can crawl through a window and "retreat".

Sorry, I wasn't trolling or being retarded. Ohio also has castle laws. You do not have to retreat from your home, but you are expected to attempt retreat from confrontation elsewhere before taking a life.


I hate having to repeat myself but:
Before you claim that it is too general and needs to be changed it might be a good idea to, you know. READ what the law actually says instead of being mislead by a bunch of people who just might have an agenda. Google is your friend and the law is not that long or convoluted. Less than 10 minutes will put you ahead of 90% of the people who have an opinion and it will be all your own.
 
2012-09-10 03:56:11 PM  
Wow, from all the morons in the Trevon Martin threads you would have thought that you could kill whoever you wanted and as long as you claimed stand your ground the police would buy you flowers and take you home in a limo.
 
2012-09-10 04:06:44 PM  

ex-nuke: Whole Wheat: hdhale: Whole Wheat: Stand your ground needs to go away. In Ohio, you have the obligation to retreat. If you are pursued and threatened, you are justified to defend yourself. And it works just fine.

Not entirely true. Also, I'm sorry, but if you break into my house you're dead. That you broke in tells me you aren't there to deliver flowers. It does tell me you have bad intentions and I'm not going to be thinking about whether or not I can crawl through a window and "retreat".

Sorry, I wasn't trolling or being retarded. Ohio also has castle laws. You do not have to retreat from your home, but you are expected to attempt retreat from confrontation elsewhere before taking a life.

I hate having to repeat myself but:
Before you claim that it is too general and needs to be changed it might be a good idea to, you know. READ what the law actually says instead of being mislead by a bunch of people who just might have an agenda. Google is your friend and the law is not that long or convoluted. Less than 10 minutes will put you ahead of 90% of the people who have an opinion and it will be all your own.


Maybe you are being presumptuous. I don't agree with the SYG laws. Retreat first, if they don't get the idea, you defend yourself. Trayvon Martin would probably have never happened if there was an obligation to retreat.
 
2012-09-10 04:10:25 PM  

Whole Wheat: Trayvon Martin would probably have never happened if there was an obligation to retreat.


Do you think Trayvon would have retreated regardless?
 
2012-09-10 04:30:48 PM  

JohnCarter: Quaker: Wert789: Stand your ground is a good law. It's not standing your ground if you go out and get a weapon then come back, when you chase someone down or when you shoot someone who is fleeing. Just because the defense attorney tried to use the stand your ground defense when it didn't apply is no reason to disparage a good law.

I'll admit that there are certain circumstances where it can save otherwise innocent people from harm, but I think that the way it's written is far too general and is thus used by people who are seeking a confrontation. IIRC, there was a guy who was upset about the noise level at a neighbor's party, so instead of asking nicely for them to quiet down or just calling the police with a noise complaint, he got his gun and went to the house and started being very confrontational with the neighbor. The neighbor, predictably, acted in a confrontational manner in response, so the guy drew his gun and shot him. Again, if I'm remembering this correctly, he wasn't prosecuted.


That was the Texas case of Paul Rodriguez in Texas and he WAS convicted of murder.

A Texas jury rejected a retired firefighter's claim that the state's stand-your-ground law gave him the right to shoot and kill an unarmed neighbor for allegedly playing loud music during a party.

The jury sided with the prosecutors and voted to convict Rodriguez of murder

And


HOUSTON (June 27, 2012)-Retired firefighter Paul Rodriguez, 46, who argued that the state's version of a stand-your-ground law allowed him to shoot a neighbor to death after an argument about a noisy party, was sentenced Wednesday to 40 years in prison for murder.


Well it looks like I wasn't remembering it correctly then. Thanks for the info.
 
2012-09-10 04:52:16 PM  

Moosecakes: The fact that someone can even attempt this defense in this situation, and that it's news that it didn't work, is pretty indicative of how bad the law is.


A defense lawyer can present any defense, and a court rules on whether it's valid.

This case is newsworthy because it helps the public understand when SYG is applicable and when it is not.

There's nothing wrong with the law. It's new, and it will take some time for its interpretation to become well-established.
 
2012-09-10 08:26:02 PM  

Marcintosh: Brown ran across Atlantic when he saw the weapon, and Agenor fired at him three times "during broad daylight and rush hour traffic," prosecutors said. Agenor said he was trying to "wound" Brown.

At least four lanes of traffic, two shoulders, maybe some parking lanes and likely two sidewalks with a moving target -

surprising there aren't a few dead.


Well, the guys statement right there kills his case. There is no legal shooting to wound in FL. You dont shoot unless your life is in danger, in which case the point is to stop (polite way to say kill) the attacker. A wounding shot would require targeting an arm or leg, which is a much harder shot than chest/center of mass. If you have the time to take a limb shot, then your not in immediate danger.
 
2012-09-10 08:48:39 PM  

Sultan Of Herf: There is no legal shooting to wound in FL. You dont shoot unless your life is in danger, in which case the point is to stop (polite way to say kill) the attacker.


More complex, though, you don't keep shooting if your attacker is definitively stopped; if he's bloody, on the ground, face-down, with any possible weapons feet away, and only twitching if anything...you're done shooting. Reloading and emptying another cylinder into him won't win you any sympathy with a jury, either.
 
2012-09-11 11:46:13 AM  

madgonad: protectyourlimbs: madgonad: Stand Your Ground only applies to White People.

Psst... Zimmerman isn't white...

/maybe he should have tried planting skittles on him...

Reading isn't your specialty, is it.

The article came out AFTER Zimmerman, but talks about similar cases - especially one in Georgia (which also has Stand Your Ground) in which a black home owner was attacked by a white man with a knife that had previously threatened him. He shot the guy, and got life in prison.


Right, so instead you're saying what? The law itself isn't the problem, just that white people using it to get off when black people cant is?

/Thinking isn't your specialty... is it...
 
Displayed 75 of 75 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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