ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
I'm not sure how stand your ground applies to somebody else's property -- if the story is correct -- particularly when you're the one with the gun.
I found it a bit amusing that he acts alarmed, in talking to 9-1-1, by the other guy's threat of coming back out of the house with his own gun, and talks about the other guy escalating things.
This is a noise complaint -- involving firearms seems like a bad idea.
DONATE TO PATSFANS.COM
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
Disturbing tape and case. Seems like he doesn't have a prayer at getting off, and he shouldn't. It's clear from the tape that the other people confronted were not posing an imminent threat to him. They had their hands up for a good part of the conversation, and at one point you can see a few of the friends trying to deescalate the VERBAL confrontation by pulling the one guy away.
I don't care what "buzz words" he was spewing, This guy should get convicted...... he certainly seems to be "provoking the incident" and there was no indication the other people were armed, or even attempting physical contact to take his weapon away. They were basically yelling at each other and the guy starts blasting.
Zimmerman has a WAAAAAAY better case then this. At least in his case, he can claim (and their seems to be evidence to back it up), that there was a physical altercation between the two that made him fear for his life (justifiably or not). This clown doesn't even have that.
Why does this guy even feel the need to "confront" someone on their own property about excessive noise, let alone do it with a gun? Call the cops and let them handle it. It their job, not his.
"Some guys play in all-star games, some guys don't. I don't know who picks all those all-star teams. In all honesty, I don't know who picks the combine, for that matter," Belichick said. "How does (Miami-Ohio offensive lineman Brandon) Brooks not get invited to the combine? How did Vollmer not get invited to the combine? I don't know. We can't really worry about that. We just have to try to evaluate them the best we can."
The reason he feels "empowered" is because of a bad law that depends on how threatened a gun-toting yahoo feels at a particular moment.
The rights theory this guy uses seems to be:
1) I don't like my neighbor's music... and I have a 2nd amendment right to not like my neighbor's music in combination with carrying a gun over to his house.
2) I have a right to complain to my neighbor and wave around my gun (this does not seem to be upheld in present legal theory anywhere.)
3) When he says he too has a gun, presto, by the new law, I have a right to shoot him.
Sounds to me like you could bring a weapon anywhere, threaten someone until they threaten back, and shoot them.
Obviously this guy takes the bad law not only to its logical extreme, but also to an illogical step or two to boot.
But it's being filmed at his request. He really, truly believes that he's figured out a legal way to kill his neighbor.
Zimmerman has the same basic problem with his case, though perhaps with a somewhat lesser level of conscious premeditation. Certainly it is possible that the "threat" he perceived was due to a guy reacting to his threats.
What we're doing is empowering people to use deadly force to address psychological deficiencies.
"Stand your ground" sounds great, when you're imagining the situation it's supposed to address (i.e., everybody always being assaulted by craven armed criminals, and needing a legal "gimme" when they respond.)
I don't agree that this is a valid way to address said oft-depicted situation, because it involves substituting the judgment of any random gun-owner for that of the courts, and encouraging them to apply whatever they believe is "justice" on the spot.
It sucks that even though you think the bad guys are coming to get you at every turn, you still have to think twice about shooting them -- but that's the only solution I can think of.
This "stand your ground" business is already being used by gang-bangers to squirm out of charges. Why should we be surprised?
That's the difference right there... where the "Castle Laws" just make B&E punishable by death at the whim of a homeowner (and that's another argument,) "stand your ground" makes everywhere your castle. It simultaneously makes everywhere everybody else's castle. In each case, police, judge, jury, and executioner duties are claimed by each person. Wonderful idea, so long as they never run into someone else defending their castles -- which is, in fact, inevitable.