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.

(WESH Orlando)   Blind man acquitted in fatal shooting gets guns back. Not everybody saw that coming   (wesh.com) divider line 41
    More: Florida  
•       •       •

2268 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Feb 2014 at 5:03 PM (8 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



41 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-02-21 05:06:24 PM
The second amendment has no qualifiers
 
2014-02-21 05:09:22 PM
Legally blind does not mean completely without sight. It just means he's got really thick glasses. In this case; it looked like he had the Ray Charles glasses. Although, that could just mean that his eyes are sensitive to light.
 
2014-02-21 05:10:51 PM

Lost Thought 00: The second amendment has no qualifiers


What state would allow a blind person to own a gun. ...... Of course it would be Florida
 
2014-02-21 05:14:59 PM
Four years ago, Rogers was accused of shooting at his cousin.

Seriously?  WTF!?   Sure, great idea, here's a bazooka.  Try not to kill anyone.
 
2014-02-21 05:16:12 PM
"May I feel your face? I need to decide where to place my shot."
 
2014-02-21 05:17:54 PM

Lost Thought 00: The second amendment has no qualifiers


Except where the courts say it does, and then it does.
 
2014-02-21 05:18:35 PM
This is a bad idea, this guy is clearly at iris of being a repeat offender.
 
2014-02-21 05:18:49 PM

Lost Thought 00: The second amendment has no qualifiers


Felons?
 
2014-02-21 05:19:58 PM

Warlordtrooper: Lost Thought 00: The second amendment has no qualifiers

What state would allow a blind person to own a gun. ...... Of course it would be Florida


"I've learned, for example, that the blind can legally hunt in both Texas
and Michigan. In Texas they must be accompanied by a sighted companion,
but I heard that in Michigan they're allowed to go it alone, which raises
the question: How do they find whatever it is they just shot?"
 
2014-02-21 05:20:15 PM

Lost Thought 00: The second amendment has no qualifiers


It will have to be decided.
 
2014-02-21 05:21:15 PM
Thanks, NRA.
 
2014-02-21 05:23:38 PM

Captain James T. Smirk: This is a bad idea, this guy is clearly at iris of being a repeat offender.


i1.ytimg.com

Ahhhhh!  Leeeaaaahhhh!
 
2014-02-21 05:30:04 PM
I have no problem with this. He was in his house, being attacked by another man, and he managed to get to his firearm and defend himself. A remarkable feat for a legally blind man. Good job.

While Judge John Galluzzo said he did not want to return the guns to Rogers, he said it was the law.


Too farking bad Judge asshat, you cant just take someones right to defend themselves just because you don't like them doing so with a firearm.

Galluzzo did order that all ammunition to be destroyed. He said it was too old and dangerous


So, not only is the judge a liberal pussy, now he's a firearm and ammunition expert. What a tool.
 
2014-02-21 05:31:05 PM
Galluzzo did order that all ammunition to be destroyed. He said it was too old and dangerous.

Yeah.  Sure it was.
 
2014-02-21 06:00:18 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: I have no problem with this. He was in his house, being attacked by another man, and he managed to get to his firearm and defend himself. A remarkable feat for a legally blind man. Good job.

While Judge John Galluzzo said he did not want to return the guns to Rogers, he said it was the law.

Too farking bad Judge asshat, you cant just take someones right to defend themselves just because you don't like them doing so with a firearm.

Galluzzo did order that all ammunition to be destroyed. He said it was too old and dangerous

So, not only is the judge a liberal pussy, now he's a firearm and ammunition expert. What a tool.


A) the Guy is Blind
B) He was acquitted due to "Stand your Ground" laws so take that he was defending himself with a grain of salt since
C) "Four years ago, Rogers was accused of shooting at his cousin."
D) The Guy is Farking Blind!

You do have a point though, the Ammo might not have been old and dangerous but the owner definitely is.
 
2014-02-21 06:10:05 PM

Lost Thought 00: The second amendment has no qualifiers


Yay!  Guns for prisoners!
 
2014-02-21 06:15:50 PM
That's the way works, for all the Grade School Analysts out there. Acquitted, all Rights restored, give him back his property.

Sad you don't understand it ..
 
2014-02-21 06:16:18 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: I have no problem with this. He was in his house, being attacked by another man, and he managed to get to his firearm and defend himself. A remarkable feat for a legally blind man. Good job.

While Judge John Galluzzo said he did not want to return the guns to Rogers, he said it was the law.

Too farking bad Judge asshat, you cant just take someones right to defend themselves just because you don't like them doing so with a firearm.

Galluzzo did order that all ammunition to be destroyed. He said it was too old and dangerous

So, not only is the judge a liberal pussy, now he's a firearm and ammunition expert. What a tool.


Rights have limitations when they put people at risk of harm. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Allowing somebody who cannot see to have a gun puts people at risk of harm. This is a reasonable restriction of the 2nd amendment
 
2014-02-21 06:23:31 PM

Warlordtrooper: Bit'O'Gristle: I have no problem with this. He was in his house, being attacked by another man, and he managed to get to his firearm and defend himself. A remarkable feat for a legally blind man. Good job.

While Judge John Galluzzo said he did not want to return the guns to Rogers, he said it was the law.

Too farking bad Judge asshat, you cant just take someones right to defend themselves just because you don't like them doing so with a firearm.

Galluzzo did order that all ammunition to be destroyed. He said it was too old and dangerous

So, not only is the judge a liberal pussy, now he's a firearm and ammunition expert. What a tool.

Rights have limitations when they put people at risk of harm. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Allowing somebody who cannot see to have a gun puts people at risk of harm. This is a reasonable restriction of the 2nd amendment


So people with disabilities should just have to accept being attacked?
 
2014-02-21 06:41:58 PM

Flashlight: Warlordtrooper: Bit'O'Gristle: I have no problem with this. He was in his house, being attacked by another man, and he managed to get to his firearm and defend himself. A remarkable feat for a legally blind man. Good job.

While Judge John Galluzzo said he did not want to return the guns to Rogers, he said it was the law.

Too farking bad Judge asshat, you cant just take someones right to defend themselves just because you don't like them doing so with a firearm.

Galluzzo did order that all ammunition to be destroyed. He said it was too old and dangerous

So, not only is the judge a liberal pussy, now he's a firearm and ammunition expert. What a tool.

Rights have limitations when they put people at risk of harm. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater. Allowing somebody who cannot see to have a gun puts people at risk of harm. This is a reasonable restriction of the 2nd amendment

So people with disabilities should just have to accept being attacked?


Potato
 
2014-02-21 06:46:10 PM
Legally blind doesn't mean completely blind.  It just means that either his distance vision can't be corrected to better than 20/200.

I know a guy who is legally blind who is a better shot than I am.
 
2014-02-21 06:47:35 PM
"It's my constitutional right. I wasn't carrying these firearms around. I was in my house on a private road in Geneva out of the way," Rogers said."

I have no qualms about the outcome, he's not packing heat when he heads out to the local grocer. If you don't like the fact that the man is legally allowed to own firearms, then don't visit him at his home...
 
2014-02-21 06:50:50 PM
They don't call him Deadeye for nothing
 
2014-02-21 07:28:45 PM
Better article:


SANFORD - The murder trial of a blind man was cut short Friday after a judge granted a "stand your ground" motion for immunity and ruled the man acted in self-defense when he shot a drinking buddy in the chest with an assault rifle. Hours after the ruling, John Wayne Rogers, 40, left the Seminole County Jail, a free man for the first time in nearly two years. He had killed James T. DeWitt, 34, an overnight guest on March 27, 2012, after a long drinking session in Rogers' home in Geneva, a rural community in eastern Seminole County. Prosecutors charged Rogers with first-degree premeditated murder, and he was facing a possible sentence of life in prison. Witnesses gave conflicting accounts of what happened that day, but defense attorneys described the case in simple terms: Rogers is a blind man who was defending himself from an attack in his home. "He felt like he had no choice but to shoot him, and he did," said Assistant Public Defender Tim Caudill. Rogers is legally blind, having been injured in a work-related accident while testing a fire-suppression system in 2001, said co-defense counsel Stuart Bryson. Seminole County deputies noted in his arrest report that he walks with a cane, but some neighbors contend he can see. Florida's "stand your ground" law has come under attack since the death of Trayvon Martin, an unarmed black 17-year-old who was shot to death in Sanford by Neighborhood Watch volunteer George Zimmerman on Feb. 26, 2012. In the end, Zimmerman did not ask for "stand your ground" immunity. At trial his lawyers argued that he had acted in self-defense, and a Seminole County jury acquitted him July 13 of second-degree murder. The "stand your ground" law allows anyone to use deadly force if he or she has a reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily injury. Since the Trayvon Martin shooting, defense attorneys have increasingly invoked the law, asking judges to give their clients immunity. Seldom, though, have they prevailed. Said Longwood attorney Donna Goerner, a former Seminole County prosecutor, "I think judges are reluctant to grant these stand your ground motions. They want to let juries decide." "There's a lot of confusion," she added. In the Rogers case, jurors heard two conflicting sets of facts: What Rogers said happened, that he fired a shot because he was under attack, and what the victim's girlfriend said, that the shooting was unprovoked. Chris White, chief of operations for the State Attorney's Office in Seminole County, said his office had not yet decided whether to appeal Friday's ruling. Rogers has a history of violence. Four years ago, he fired 15 rounds from a handgun at Michael Rogers, his roommate and cousin, following a night of drinking and fighting in Geneva, according to court records. Michael Rogers suffered scrapes but no gunshot wounds. The defendant was charged with aggravated assault but, in a deal with prosecutors, pleaded no contest to a lesser charge - unlawfully displaying a firearm - and was placed on probation. That was revoked, however, when he pushed and punched a woman a year later, something that resulted in him spending 71 days in the Seminole County jail for domestic violence, according to court records. Rogers shot DeWitt once in the chest with a .308 Remington assault rifle from a distance of 18 inches or less, defense attorneys said. DeWitt and his girlfriend had gone to Rogers' house to drink beer and had spent the night, according to his arrest report, and the next day the group had made a 10 a.m. trip to the store to buy more beer. The defendant testified that he asked DeWitt to leave but that the victim attacked him, so he went into the bedroom, retrieved his rifle, walked back into the living room and pointed it in DeWitt's general direction. DeWitt then charged him, he said, so he fired one round. DeWitt's girlfriend, Christina Ann Robertson, told Seminole County deputies that the two men had been "play fighting," something they sometimes did, when Rogers walked into another room, emerged with the rifle and shot DeWitt without provocation. After listening to Rogers' testimony on Thursday, Circuit Judge John Galluzzo returned to the bench Friday morning and granted his "stand your ground" motion, meaning he declared the defendant immune from prosecution. Before being blinded, Rogers served in the U.S. Marine Corps, defense attorneys said. Jurors were selected Monday and returned Wednesday, Thursday and Friday to hear evidence and argument in the case. They would have begun deliberations Friday, had the judge not made his ruling.

From Orlando Sentinel
 
2014-02-21 07:41:27 PM
While Judge John Galluzzo said he did not want to return the guns to Rogers, he said it was the law.

Rogers' guns were confiscated by law-enforcement officers after he fatally shot a man. He was later acquitted.

"I have to return property that was taken under the circumstance," Galluzzo said. "I have researched and haven't found case law to say otherwise."


fark you judge john galluzo.
 
2014-02-21 07:54:12 PM

DarkVader: Legally blind doesn't mean completely blind.  It just means that either his distance vision can't be corrected to better than 20/200.

I know a guy who is legally blind who is a better shot than I am.


I know an active archeologist who gives lectures with slides, and is legally blind.  He basically can see within a couple feet of his face.
 
2014-02-21 08:26:58 PM

Warlordtrooper: Lost Thought 00: The second amendment has no qualifiers

What state would allow a blind person to own a gun. ...... Of course it would be Florida


Iowa does, too.
 
2014-02-21 08:27:58 PM

Lost Thought 00: The second amendment has no qualifiers


Actually, Justice Scalia disagrees with you.
 
2014-02-21 08:57:13 PM
The thing that I find interesting is that the guy was already charged, and on trial, and in front of a jury when the judge decided to invoke SYG - which he could have done much earlier on. It suggests to me that some new information or argument or something must have moved him to do that, but there is no clue in the article. It would be interesting to see a transcript of his exact ruling.
 
2014-02-21 09:04:26 PM

iheartscotch: Legally blind does not mean completely without sight. It just means he's got really thick glasses. In this case; it looked like he had the Ray Charles glasses. Although, that could just mean that his eyes are sensitive to light.


No--legally blind is 20/200 *WITH GLASSES*.  Thus it doesn't mean merely really thick glasses.

On the other hand, without her glasses my wife is worse than 20/200.  Would her vision keep her from being able to shoot in self defense if she didn't have her glasses?  In most situations, no--most self defense shootings are at pretty close range.  So long as she didn't have to pick out bad guys from good guys she could shoot at the sort of range you'll get in your house.

Bit'O'Gristle: I have no problem with this. He was in his house, being attacked by another man, and he managed to get to his firearm and defend himself. A remarkable feat for a legally blind man. Good job.


I don't find it a remarkable feat.  Those with limited or no vision learn to function anyway and thus in a situation with limited vision anyway (say, the lights off) they often outperform sighted people who aren't used to doing things by touch.

lack of warmth: I know an active archeologist who gives lectures with slides, and is legally blind. He basically can see within a couple feet of his face.


Yeah.  I used to know someone who could read, albeit with difficulty, despite being legally blind--and he was a *LOT* worse than 20/200.
 
2014-02-21 09:22:56 PM

Warlordtrooper: Allowing somebody who cannot see to have a gun puts people at risk of harm. This is a reasonable restriction of the 2nd amendment


Those guns happen to be his property, not equipment loaned from the state.
It would be like saying you can no longer own a car because you don't qualify for a drivers license.

Whether he can use something isn't the basis for whether he can legally own that thing.


/Maybe he can't qualify for a CCW, but his stuff is still his.
 
2014-02-21 09:29:40 PM

Warlordtrooper: Lost Thought 00: The second amendment has no qualifiers

What state would allow a blind person to own a gun. ...... Of course it would be Florida


Any one that follows ADA presumably.
 
2014-02-21 10:23:53 PM
CSB:

I knew a guy who got busted for growing marijuana and his plants were seized. But something happened and he was acquitted. The state of New Mexico was required to return his plants or the dollar amount they were worth.
 
2014-02-21 11:12:59 PM

Bit'O'Gristle: I have no problem with this. He was in his house, being attacked by another man, and he managed to get to his firearm and defend himself. A remarkable feat for a legally blind man. Good job.

While Judge John Galluzzo said he did not want to return the guns to Rogers, he said it was the law.

Too farking bad Judge asshat, you cant just take someones right to defend themselves just because you don't like them doing so with a firearm.

Galluzzo did order that all ammunition to be destroyed. He said it was too old and dangerous

So, not only is the judge a liberal pussy, now he's a firearm and ammunition expert. What a tool.


Old ammunition can be dangerous, depending on the circumstances and condition of the ammunition (how has it been stored, is there corrosion, things like that). It may misfire or 'hang-fire' (where it takes more time for the round to go off), and is generally not considered good to be used for self-defense situations for those reasons, though most gun owners will happily use it at the range for general skills maintenance shooting because most of the time, it is sufficient for that purpose. (I personally have ammo I use for 'plunking' rounds at the range that is not the same as my personal protection ammunition, which is much more expensive).

But I'm inclined to at least see the judge's point of view here: this individual has shot his cousin once before and the circumstances surrounding this particular shooting death are murky. Yes, it took place in his home, but alcohol was a factor--both he and the friend he shot to death had been drinking. At issue is what prompted the shooting, which is a he said/she said argument between this man and a witness to the shooting (IIRC). But another thing that needs to be considered: he is legally blind. Giving a legally blind man who has shot two men access to firearms because 'he needs them for self defense' strikes me as a piss poor argument. He can't farking SEE clearly! Shapes are what he sees and he must rely on voice and scent. We'd--and by that I mean not just society, but responsible gun owners as a whole--would be better off if this man had a couple of mastiffs for protection instead of a couple of guns.
 
2014-02-22 12:06:58 AM
4 years ago he was accused of shooting at his cousin.

I take it they were playing a game of hide and skeet.
 
2014-02-22 02:26:30 AM
Oh for Christ's sake. Give the guy a Daisy BB gun and tell him it is an AK-47 and be done with it. He'll never know.
 
2014-02-22 02:33:24 AM
Flashlight:  You can't yell fire in a crowded theater.

WRONG!   That would be prior restraint.  We don't gag people going into theaters to prevent them from yelling fire, and we don't take away someones guns just because they may not see well.

In fact you CAN yell fire in a crowded theater all you want, however if you do so you are responsible for any injuries or damages that you cause.
 
2014-02-22 02:34:53 AM
i93.photobucket.com
 
2014-02-22 06:13:23 AM

99.998er: Oh for Christ's sake. Give the guy a Daisy BB gun and tell him it is an AK-47 and be done with it. He'll never know.




Just because he's blind doesn't mean he's deaf.
 
2014-02-22 01:25:06 PM

Warlordtrooper: Allowing somebody who cannot see to have a gun puts people at risk of harm. This is a reasonable restriction of the 2nd amendment


Legally blind does not mean what you think it means.  It doesn't mean you can't see at all, it means your uncorrected vision is 20/200 or worse.   Lots of legally blind people can see well enough to function normally; you'd never know they were "blind" unless they told you. 

Most defensive shooting happen at 12 feet or less.   I've known several "legally blind" people who could recognize faces at that distance. 

And, no, it's not a reasonable restriction - no person can be deprived their rights without due process.   Period.
 
2014-02-22 04:37:21 PM

Aigoo: Old ammunition can be dangerous, depending on the circumstances and condition of the ammunition


That is true.  But properly stored ammunition lasts virtually forever.   I've purchased WWII surplus ammo that was just fine, and I still have a couple boxes of 7.62R left from a case lot I bought 20 years ago.
 
Displayed 41 of 41 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report