Welcome to PatsFans.com

"Stand Your Ground"?

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by chicowalker, Jun 7, 2012.

  1. chicowalker

    chicowalker Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,105
    Likes Received:
    126
    Ratings:
    +253 / 3 / -4

    Stand Your Ground? Texas man kills teacher over noise complaint | The Raw Story

    thought this was interesting...

    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.
     
  2. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,550
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +34 / 0 / -0

    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.
     
    Last edited: Jun 7, 2012
  3. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,876
    Likes Received:
    108
    Ratings:
    +240 / 8 / -13

    The guy is spinning trying to defend the indefensible. The guy shoulda stayed home called the cops.
     
  4. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,543
    Likes Received:
    294
    Ratings:
    +569 / 8 / -8

    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.) :rolleyes:

    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?

    PFnV
     
  5. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,676
    Likes Received:
    143
    Ratings:
    +388 / 3 / -15

    #18 Jersey

    Only in the "Great" state of Texas.....
     
  6. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,543
    Likes Received:
    294
    Ratings:
    +569 / 8 / -8

    ...and a dozen or two other states...
     
  7. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    15,889
    Likes Received:
    328
    Ratings:
    +559 / 9 / -5

    #24 Jersey

  8. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,676
    Likes Received:
    143
    Ratings:
    +388 / 3 / -15

    #18 Jersey

    I don't know what the difference between stand your ground and the laws that allow one to kill a person who breaks into your home.

    But I do support being able to use deadly force if I wake up and find someone in my house...whether they have a weapon or not.
     
  9. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    15,889
    Likes Received:
    328
    Ratings:
    +559 / 9 / -5

    #24 Jersey

    Which has absolutely nothing to do with this story where the guy took his own gun over to the other guy's house and shot him with it.
     
  10. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,543
    Likes Received:
    294
    Ratings:
    +569 / 8 / -8

    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.

    PFnV
     
  11. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    You'd better be careful, my friend. There's a spelling nazi in this forum who thinks that such mistakes show not only a lack of respect in others, but also a lack of respect in yourself. :singing:
     
  12. Patriot_in_NY

    Patriot_in_NY Veteran Starter w/Big Long Term Deal

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2007
    Messages:
    8,550
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +34 / 0 / -0

    Absolutely not. The law is pretty clear and there is no "dependance" on how you feel at a particular moment either. That's just your simplification.

    The premise of the law is actually very reasonable. It just states that you have no duty to retreat from a place that you have every legitimate right to be when attacked or are "ATTACKED". Also, there has to be a reasonable grounds to believe that someone else going to take your life or do you great bodily harm. Add to that, the individual is NOT THE DETERMINER of "attacked" or "threatened" either. The ultimate determiner of that is the jury, or judge.

    In this Texas case, the guy (based on the video anyway) has no REASONABLE reason to believe from the actions of the others that they were going to take his life or even do him bodily harm. I don't believe any reasonable jury will find that. They were just yelling at each other.

    The TM case is a little less clear, particularly if it's proven that TM was beating Z's ***** when he shot him. Then it really comes down to was Z's pre-attack behavior a "provocation" of the assault. That is what I believe will be the key factor in this case.

    Is it provoking behavior that when acting in the capacity of "neighborhood watch" guy to follow/approach/talk to people or situations that are "out of the ordinary" for the community. That will be the $1,000,000 question.
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2012
  13. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,543
    Likes Received:
    294
    Ratings:
    +569 / 8 / -8

    Oh, lots of $1,000,000 questions in the Z case, PFiNY. Was he in his capacity of neighborhood watch? Then why was he carrying a gun? Was he not in said capacity? Then why was he following him?

    There's a very tortured story Z has put out there (actually, a couple of them,) that perfectly fits the very edges of the law. Every week or two we hear he's going to try to use "stand your ground," or he's not, or whatever.

    The most recent I heard that his attorney says that was never part of the plan, but that there may be the automatic "stand your ground" hearing -- just a sort of pre-verdict they do when you shoot someone in Florida, evidently. You wouldn't want to waste all that expense on putting people through trials just because they're shooting people to death.

    As to what rests with the "reasonable fear" of the shooter, there are two problems with your dismissal:

    1. If I am a gun-toting vigilante, I believe all my fears are reasonable. My knowledge of the law, therefore, becomes "whatever I am afraid of I am entitled to kill."

    2. The court can, as you say, determine that a fear was, or was not, reasonable; sort of like the legal fiction of "the reasonable man," which comes into play in all sorts of ways.

    It would seem, however, that the courts therefore have latitude to summarily dismiss cases, based on the application of the "reasonable fear" test.

    In other words, you get a better chance of getting off for shooting people. Application of the test also will carry with it whatever biases are inherent in a given judge's outlook. There is no objective test.

    But all of this is ancillary. The effect of the law is to encourage vigilante behavior, as we are seeing in case after case.

    WP, if you think you find a spelling error, go ahead and point it out. If you're right, I'm always glad to acknowledge it. Do you have a particular complaint?

    PFnV
     
  14. chicowalker

    chicowalker Pro Bowl Player

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,105
    Likes Received:
    126
    Ratings:
    +253 / 3 / -4

    PatriotinNY: would it be unreasonable to feel threatened if the guy having the party had gone to his house and returned with his own gun?

    Seems reasonable to me, actually, after the shouting and the guy saying he was messing with the wrong ( expletive).

    Yet that person should have the right to protect himself, too.

    It seems to me that the person who shot here instigated all of this and escalated it, yet I could easily see a jury member applying the law in a manner favorable to the shooter.

    The law seems very open to abuse, imo
     
  15. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,676
    Likes Received:
    143
    Ratings:
    +388 / 3 / -15

    #18 Jersey

    And that's ok....

    But my comment has everything to do with YOUR post here...

    You're the one who brought it up!!!!!
     
  16. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,676
    Likes Received:
    143
    Ratings:
    +388 / 3 / -15

    #18 Jersey

    The reality is, no one give a flying fark whether you spell a word wrong on this board.

    Incorrect spelling on a football board reflects nothing. But using spell check on a football board is a clear sign of a loser/get a life sad sac.
     
    Last edited: Jun 9, 2012
  17. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    That's not entirely accurate. You don't care about spelling mistakes and I don't care about spelling mistakes, but it's certainly not accurate to say "no one" in here cares about spelling mistakes. :singing:
     
  18. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,676
    Likes Received:
    143
    Ratings:
    +388 / 3 / -15

    #18 Jersey

    A lot of people do a lot pretending in life wolfie. When I meet people like that, I purposefully do the sh1t that irritates them. Just a little secret between you & I.;)
     
  19. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    15,889
    Likes Received:
    328
    Ratings:
    +559 / 9 / -5

    #24 Jersey

    Because your comment was "only in Texas."
     
  20. PatriotsReign

    PatriotsReign Hall of Fame Poster

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    Messages:
    26,676
    Likes Received:
    143
    Ratings:
    +388 / 3 / -15

    #18 Jersey

    lol MrsP...you're STILL the one who brought it up and I responded directly to your comment.

    Almost finished with your prednisone cycle?
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>