Another Stand Your Ground in FLA in the making?
- Thread starter beth
- Start date
darthtang aw
Active Member
Pretty sure he is going to jail and has no defense since theatres only allow firearms if it is a uniformed officer.
mohawkninja
Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/396972/another-stand-your-ground-in-fla-in-the-making#post_3537152
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/14/justice/florida-movie-theater-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
While it is extremely irritating that people can't seem to live wo their phone in movie theaters, not sure texting and popcorn in the face is a reason to start shooting.
Rumor has it that the guy texting was wearing a hoodie.
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/396972/another-stand-your-ground-in-fla-in-the-making#post_3537152
http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/14/justice/florida-movie-theater-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
While it is extremely irritating that people can't seem to live wo their phone in movie theaters, not sure texting and popcorn in the face is a reason to start shooting.
Rumor has it that the guy texting was wearing a hoodie.
mohawkninja
Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Quills http:///t/396972/another-stand-your-ground-in-fla-in-the-making#post_3537179
Darth, I think this one was over by you. Keep an eye out for white boys with guns these days. http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/14/justice/new-mexico-school-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_c2
This is getting ridiculous. Almost every 2 weeks now. Matter of time before we have another Columbine.
Originally Posted by 2Quills http:///t/396972/another-stand-your-ground-in-fla-in-the-making#post_3537179
Darth, I think this one was over by you. Keep an eye out for white boys with guns these days. http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/14/justice/new-mexico-school-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_c2
This is getting ridiculous. Almost every 2 weeks now. Matter of time before we have another Columbine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/396972/another-stand-your-ground-in-fla-in-the-making#post_3537181
Unless the texter got up and threatened the guy I don't see where stand your ground would come into play.
The guy did get up to argue with the shooter, and then he threw popcorn on him. That is where the stand your ground comes in. The shooter is claiming that he threw something in his face (not admitting that he knew it was popcorn). If the guy had not been shot, then he might have ended charged with assault.
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/396972/another-stand-your-ground-in-fla-in-the-making#post_3537181
Unless the texter got up and threatened the guy I don't see where stand your ground would come into play.
The guy did get up to argue with the shooter, and then he threw popcorn on him. That is where the stand your ground comes in. The shooter is claiming that he threw something in his face (not admitting that he knew it was popcorn). If the guy had not been shot, then he might have ended charged with assault.
mohawkninja
Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/396972/another-stand-your-ground-in-fla-in-the-making#post_3537200
The guy did get up to argue with the shooter, and then he threw popcorn on him. That is where the stand your ground comes in. The shooter is claiming that he threw something in his face (not admitting that he knew it was popcorn). If the guy had not been shot, then he might have ended charged with assault.
He feared that the popcorn might take his life? Stand your ground only applies if you think that you might die correct?
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/396972/another-stand-your-ground-in-fla-in-the-making#post_3537200
The guy did get up to argue with the shooter, and then he threw popcorn on him. That is where the stand your ground comes in. The shooter is claiming that he threw something in his face (not admitting that he knew it was popcorn). If the guy had not been shot, then he might have ended charged with assault.
He feared that the popcorn might take his life? Stand your ground only applies if you think that you might die correct?
2quills
Well-Known Member
Texting kills more people per year than popcorn. Texting should be illegal.
You telling me that a retired police chief and head of security at the gardens was affraid of a little popcorn? He was the one with the gun after all. That's going to be a tough pill to swallow on this one.
You telling me that a retired police chief and head of security at the gardens was affraid of a little popcorn? He was the one with the gun after all. That's going to be a tough pill to swallow on this one.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Darth, I think this one was over by you. Keep an eye out for white boys with guns these days. http://www.cnn.com/2014/01/14/justice/new-mexico-school-shooting/index.html?hpt=hp_c2
Yeah, read about that yesterday.
Yeah, read about that yesterday.
crimzy
Active Member
Stand your ground laws are completely dumb and useless. Let me elaborate... they are to protect ignorant cowboys and rednecks (if there is a difference), who lately seem to all be armed. The alternate to the stand your ground law is where people have a duty to retreat (unless you're in your own home).
Inasmuch as every Billy Bada$$ with a gun feels empowered to use said gun to settle a dispute, especially in light of the Zimmerman verdict (and similar cases as referenced in this thread). The law has been bastardized so that every moron with a gun now feels justified that they shouldn't have to swallow their pride and walk away, nor should they have to risk getting punched in the nose. Instead, the better alternative, according to the stupid law and the idiots it protects, is to use a gun to end the conflict.
A major complication in applying any claim of self-defense is that it is completely subjective. A person is entitled to use force to protect him/herself from an imminent assault. Note that there doesn't have to be an actual threat, but one that is perceived by the Defendant, and he/she is entitled to use the amount of force necessary to repel the attack. In all of this, the actual application of the law is someone claiming that he/she "felt" scared, threatened, etc. And when we discuss the use of deadly force, there is no living victim to tell any other side of the story other than the Defendant's self-serving version.
As you may be able to see, I find the stand your ground law to be outdated and barbaric, and people like George Zimmerman have their bad behavior vindicated by simply whining about their fear. If you're so scared, then feel free to walk away, rather than being empowered by the deadly weapon that is clearly needed when you go to the movies. Or better yet, simply man up and figure out a way to settle the conflict like a man.
Unfortunately the application of this law is used to protect cowards who feel empowered to antagonize disputes. In my humble opinion, a duty to retreat should apply more stringently to those who have CPL permits, as they are the ones who need to exercise the most restraint. If you're not tough enough to engage in an altercation without drawing your weapon, then you shouldn't have a gun, IMHO.
Inasmuch as every Billy Bada$$ with a gun feels empowered to use said gun to settle a dispute, especially in light of the Zimmerman verdict (and similar cases as referenced in this thread). The law has been bastardized so that every moron with a gun now feels justified that they shouldn't have to swallow their pride and walk away, nor should they have to risk getting punched in the nose. Instead, the better alternative, according to the stupid law and the idiots it protects, is to use a gun to end the conflict.
A major complication in applying any claim of self-defense is that it is completely subjective. A person is entitled to use force to protect him/herself from an imminent assault. Note that there doesn't have to be an actual threat, but one that is perceived by the Defendant, and he/she is entitled to use the amount of force necessary to repel the attack. In all of this, the actual application of the law is someone claiming that he/she "felt" scared, threatened, etc. And when we discuss the use of deadly force, there is no living victim to tell any other side of the story other than the Defendant's self-serving version.
As you may be able to see, I find the stand your ground law to be outdated and barbaric, and people like George Zimmerman have their bad behavior vindicated by simply whining about their fear. If you're so scared, then feel free to walk away, rather than being empowered by the deadly weapon that is clearly needed when you go to the movies. Or better yet, simply man up and figure out a way to settle the conflict like a man.
Unfortunately the application of this law is used to protect cowards who feel empowered to antagonize disputes. In my humble opinion, a duty to retreat should apply more stringently to those who have CPL permits, as they are the ones who need to exercise the most restraint. If you're not tough enough to engage in an altercation without drawing your weapon, then you shouldn't have a gun, IMHO.
crimzy
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/396972/another-stand-your-ground-in-fla-in-the-making#post_3537217
Remember the Zimmerman case could have gone either way and there was evidence to show he had been physically assaulted. This guy doesn't appear to have a mark on him and a tub of popcorn isn't going to qualify as a deadly weapon. This guy is going to die in jail
Don't forget that all he needs to be acquitted is a subjective fear of an imminent assault. And don't forget that his testimony is evidence. Will the prosecutor be able to disprove his claims that he felt a threat of death or serious bodily injury, beyond a reasonable doubt?
Prosecutor has a tough burden to disprove a Defendant's momentary emotional state. Don't be surprise if some persuasive attorney can create some doubt among the jury.
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/396972/another-stand-your-ground-in-fla-in-the-making#post_3537217
Remember the Zimmerman case could have gone either way and there was evidence to show he had been physically assaulted. This guy doesn't appear to have a mark on him and a tub of popcorn isn't going to qualify as a deadly weapon. This guy is going to die in jail
Don't forget that all he needs to be acquitted is a subjective fear of an imminent assault. And don't forget that his testimony is evidence. Will the prosecutor be able to disprove his claims that he felt a threat of death or serious bodily injury, beyond a reasonable doubt?
Prosecutor has a tough burden to disprove a Defendant's momentary emotional state. Don't be surprise if some persuasive attorney can create some doubt among the jury.
2quills
Well-Known Member
Something tells me that the collective conscious is going to be looking to set an example with this one.
Zman had physical injuries, this guy doesn't. But then again, had the younger man not thrown a bag of popcorn at a 71 year old man then he might not have gotten shot.
For two people who have both served in armed forces this was a serious breakdown in responsibility on either end.
Will be interesting to see how the no gun policy of the establishment plays out.
Zman had physical injuries, this guy doesn't. But then again, had the younger man not thrown a bag of popcorn at a 71 year old man then he might not have gotten shot.
For two people who have both served in armed forces this was a serious breakdown in responsibility on either end.
Will be interesting to see how the no gun policy of the establishment plays out.
To me the problem begins with the dead man who threw the first punch (so to speak). Otherwise, there is no stand your ground. The individual who was shot was the first aggressor when he decided to stand up to argue with the shooter then threw popcorn on him. His own wife took the initial shot through the hand because she was attempting to intervene with her husband's aggression. If he hadn't been killed, he could well have been charged.
While I don't think that everyone who carries a gun is a cowboy moron, I am beginning to think that the few who are morons will be able to use the law to their advantage. As an ex-cop, this old guy might have been able to figure out an alternative to killing someone. Maybe age played in to it?
While I don't think that everyone who carries a gun is a cowboy moron, I am beginning to think that the few who are morons will be able to use the law to their advantage. As an ex-cop, this old guy might have been able to figure out an alternative to killing someone. Maybe age played in to it?
crimzy
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/396972/another-stand-your-ground-in-fla-in-the-making#post_3537225
To me the problem begins with the dead man who threw the first punch (so to speak). Otherwise, there is no stand your ground. The individual who was shot was the first aggressor when he decided to stand up to argue with the shooter then threw popcorn on him. His own wife took the initial shot through the hand because she was attempting to intervene with her husband's aggression. If he hadn't been killed, he could well have been charged.
While I don't think that everyone who carries a gun is a cowboy moron, I am beginning to think that the few who are morons will be able to use the law to their advantage. As an ex-cop, this old guy might have been able to figure out an alternative to killing someone. Maybe age played in to it?
That is possible. And even if the dead man did initially commit an assault, his actions constituted nothing more than a misdemeanor. While it is easy to suggest that there is fault to go around, (which I agree with), one man MAY have committed a misdemeanor while the other man killed him. Because of that, I find it distasteful to blame the dead man for getting killed because he may have committed a minor criminal violation.
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/396972/another-stand-your-ground-in-fla-in-the-making#post_3537225
To me the problem begins with the dead man who threw the first punch (so to speak). Otherwise, there is no stand your ground. The individual who was shot was the first aggressor when he decided to stand up to argue with the shooter then threw popcorn on him. His own wife took the initial shot through the hand because she was attempting to intervene with her husband's aggression. If he hadn't been killed, he could well have been charged.
While I don't think that everyone who carries a gun is a cowboy moron, I am beginning to think that the few who are morons will be able to use the law to their advantage. As an ex-cop, this old guy might have been able to figure out an alternative to killing someone. Maybe age played in to it?
That is possible. And even if the dead man did initially commit an assault, his actions constituted nothing more than a misdemeanor. While it is easy to suggest that there is fault to go around, (which I agree with), one man MAY have committed a misdemeanor while the other man killed him. Because of that, I find it distasteful to blame the dead man for getting killed because he may have committed a minor criminal violation.
reefraff
Active Member
I like stand your ground laws. I seldom have a gun with me unless I am road tripping and then it stays in the truck. No fear, just the realization there are some crazy muthas out there on the lonely open road.
If someone kicks in your front door and you ventilate their forehead you shouldn't have to hire a lawyer and spend thousands to stay out of jail for dispatching someone who richly deserved it. Some states take it to a crazy level, like Texas. You can use deadly force there to protect your neighbor's property. That's nutz.
But it works fantastic here in Colorado and not even the current brainless gun phobic liberal half brains running the state at this time have tried to repeal it. There was a case last year where a guy caught two gentlemen here from another country doing the jobs we lazy Americans wont stealing his trailer. As they were driving away he let loose with a few rounds and hit one of the guys. He was successfully prosecuted. There have been numerous incidents of homeowners taking out bad guys who have broken into their homes. And thanks to SYG laws they didn't have to spend thousands in legal fees for protecting themselves.
If someone kicks in your front door and you ventilate their forehead you shouldn't have to hire a lawyer and spend thousands to stay out of jail for dispatching someone who richly deserved it. Some states take it to a crazy level, like Texas. You can use deadly force there to protect your neighbor's property. That's nutz.
But it works fantastic here in Colorado and not even the current brainless gun phobic liberal half brains running the state at this time have tried to repeal it. There was a case last year where a guy caught two gentlemen here from another country doing the jobs we lazy Americans wont stealing his trailer. As they were driving away he let loose with a few rounds and hit one of the guys. He was successfully prosecuted. There have been numerous incidents of homeowners taking out bad guys who have broken into their homes. And thanks to SYG laws they didn't have to spend thousands in legal fees for protecting themselves.