Another Stand Your Ground in FLA in the making?

[crimzy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/396972/another-stand-your-ground-in-fla-in-the-making#post_3537228
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.
You're misinformed my friend. As far as I know, every state that observes a duty to retreat does not require that in one's own home. That is generally referred to as the Castle law, (ie. your home is your castle). And unfortunately, there are just as many crazy muthas who possess CPL's, which makes them that more hazardous to everyone else.

As a side note, one of my favorite pastimes when I was young was to throw ice into crowds at busy bars. I'm glad I was never shot by a gun-toting nutjob who was in fear of my aggression...

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by crimzy http:///t/396972/another-stand-your-ground-in-fla-in-the-making#post_3537226
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.

If someone came up and starting beating on a person for no reason and got shot I'd probably side with the shooter. But this appears to be a mutual altercation. If you can't win the fight don't start it. I can't imagine not voting to convict this guy if I were on the jury.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by crimzy http:///t/396972/another-stand-your-ground-in-fla-in-the-making/20#post_3537229
You're misinformed my friend. As far as I know, every state that observes a duty to retreat does not require that in one's own home. That is generally referred to as the Castle law, (ie. your home is your castle). And unfortunately, there are just as many crazy muthas who possess CPL's, which makes them that more hazardous to everyone else.

As a side note, one of my favorite pastimes when I was young was to throw ice into crowds at busy bars. I'm glad I was never shot my a gun-toting nutjob who was in fear of my aggression...
http://www.capitalgazette.com/news/for_the_record/attorney-glen-burnie-shooting-was-self-defense/article_36bb4d67-b713-5b22-b6c5-d9e2b1d1016d.html

Pinkerton was charged with second-degree murder, manslaughter and use of a firearm in a felony or violent crime.
The state argued that Pinkerton could have called 911.

 

[crimzy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/396972/another-stand-your-ground-in-fla-in-the-making/20#post_3537232
http://www.capitalgazette.com/news/for_the_record/attorney-glen-burnie-shooting-was-self-defense/article_36bb4d67-b713-5b22-b6c5-d9e2b1d1016d.html

Pinkerton was charged with second-degree murder, manslaughter and use of a firearm in a felony or violent crime.
The state argued that Pinkerton could have called 911.
The state can argue whatever they want. But the article didn't indicate how the case came out. Even without a stand your ground law, if this Defendant made his case that he felt danger of an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm, then he should be acquitted, with or without the stand your ground law. The stand your ground law is distinguished from the duty to retreat only outside of one's home, (movies for instance).

 

[reefraff]

Difference is with stand your ground there's a hearing that would determine if the charges are proper or not. You don't have to lawyer up for that and even if you do it's way cheaper than going to trial.

Some states it only does apply to your home. Colorado it's anywhere you have a legal right to be. The duty to retreat deal here is a little cloudy. If you are standing in your doorway and someone across the street threatens you there is a good chance you'd be charged if you didn't go inside your house. But if he's on your front sidewalk game on.

 

[2quills]

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?
Yep, maybe he's used his weapon under questionable circumstances in the line of duty before and gotten away with it. Or known people who has. As an ex cop maybe he wasn't as concerned because he felt like he has the law on his side. Not a good mindset to have IMO.
I love speculating.

 

[darthtang aw]

In New Mexico, stand your ground is applicable if one did not instigate the encounter. in this case, the old man instigated. Sorry...I would convict him.
http://justicetm.org/new-mexico-retreat-law-reviewed-in-light-of-the-trayvon-martin-case/

 

[2quills]

How'd he instigate exactly?

 

[beth]

The old man (shooter) did not instigate. The argument started with the victim. The shooter asked the victim to stop using cellphone. Victim did not. Shooter left the theater to see management about the problem. He came back alone. The victim then confronted the old man and asked if he was getting management involved. At some point the victim stood up and threw the popcorn. The shooter, also standing, presumably because he was returning to his seat after returning to the theater, took out his gun and fired the shot. The shot went through the victim's wife hand as she was putting her hand on the victim's chest (presumably trying to hold back her husband after he threw the popcorn).

Obviously there was no reason to kill the guy, but the situation was escalated due to the assault by the victim against the shooter. Both reactions were quite bizarre in my view.

 

[2quills]

So far it sounds like anger is the real killer here, not fear. But the day is young and we love us some drama lol.

 

[darthtang aw]

How'd he instigate exactly?
Instead of letting a theater manager handle the texting he continued arguing with the guy about it. Instigated the argument.
When you are in possession of a firearm your actions need to be calmer. More responsible. When I am carrying I avoid confrontations...I do not argue with anyone...as I know if it escalates I might have to do that. I have no problem defending myself or my family with my firearms. But taking another persons life is not something i want to have to live with the rest of my life.
Popcorn does not constitute a threat to life. Then struggling with the off duty officer that tried to intercept the gun from you after the shooting doesn't look good either. Hasd the gun not been jammed, the off duty officer probably would have been killed also.

 

[2quills]

I'd read that the manager was unavailable to help.
The shooter shot because he was angry for getting popcorn thrown at him. Popcorn was thrown because the thrower was angry for getting ratted on. He got ratted on because he was texting after the attraction had begun which you are asked not to do anyways.
I'm telling you...texting is the root of all evil IMO. If they ban guns then they should ban phones. Both can save or kill.

 

[darthtang aw]

I'd read that the manager was unavailable to help.
.
I haven't read that anywhere. I read he returned to his seat alone after looking for a manager and the argument continued. No story says wether he spoke with a manager or actually informed any employees of what was going on.

 

[2quills]

This is why we can't jump to conclusions as far as media is concerned. Cause I'm sure I read that earlier which is why the old man returned alone.

 

[darthtang aw]

This is why we can't jump to conclusions as far as media is concerned. Cause I'm sure I read that earlier which is why the old man returned alone.

The two men began to argue and Reeves walked out of the auditorium. Police said Reeves was going to complain to a theater employee. But Nocco told CNN on Tuesday night that the manager was busy with another customer and Reeves never addressed his complaint with a supervisor.

Found it, he never told anyone about the incident.

 

[2quills]

Found it, he never told anyone about the incident.
Because no one was there to assist him when he needed assistance. So it's a lack of irresponsibility all around.
I read the old man sat back down and the guy who got shot started asking if he went and told on him. Maybe the old man figured after he couldn't get assistance that it wasn't that crucial and went back to watch the movie?

 

[darthtang aw]

Because no one was there to assist him when he needed assistance. So it's a lack of irresponsibility all around.
I read the old man sat back down and the guy who got shot started asking if he went and told on him. Maybe the old man figured after he couldn't get assistance that it wasn't that crucial and went back to watch the movie?
There was someone there to assist him, he just didnt have the patience to wait to speak with the manager...
We are also forgetting, there are no weapons allowed in the theater. Therefore I don't think stand your ground applies as he had no legal right to possess a firearm in the place.

 

[2quills]

I'm not sure if a private movie theater has the right to deny somebody's right to carry from what I was reading earlier. The only place where the law applies to deny someone of that right is like in court rooms and air ports etc. That's why I say it will be intersting to see how that one plays out.

 

[beth]

Actually, the no weapons is a policy of the movie theater which was not posted anywhere except on their website. If they didn't want weapons, then they needed to post it clearly at the theater. On the other hand, stop using cell phones is announced on the screen pre-movie.

 

[darthtang aw]

I'm not sure if a private movie theater has the right to deny somebody's right to carry from what I was reading earlier. The only place where the law applies to deny someone of that right is like in court rooms and air ports etc. That's why I say it will be intersting to see how that one plays out.
Yes they do, as they are federally protected under private property laws. On private property you have the right to not allow firearms. A business is private property.