Stand Your Ground Law's Latest Victim

[Dos Equis]

You wouldn't say that such self-protection laws cause it to matter, and very much so?

Don't understand what you mean.

[Dos Equis]

...he could fearfully imagine being run over by a bus the intruder was somehow concealing, but of course that would be an unrealistic fear. Right?

Seems to me there is a very small scope of possibility. Would you agree or disagree?

Disagree, for the reasons I've already stated.  There are a number of ways someone can be injured or killed. 

[Dos Equis]

BTW: I believe the man was legitimately fearful when he shot Westbrook.

Right now, I'm referring to his mental health. That's it.

I'm not talking about his mental health, because I haven't read anything to lead me to believe he had mental health issues. 

[Jack T. Cross]

Disagree, for the reasons I've already stated.  There are a number of ways someone can be injured or killed.

So in the case of Hendrix: which of these should he have considered, as a healthy, reasonable person?

[Dos Equis]

So in the case of Hendrix: which of these should he have considered, as a healthy, reasonable person?

None.  As I indicated earlier, I don't think reasonable people lay awake at night envisioning the various ways they can be injured or killed. 

[Jack T. Cross]

None.  As I indicated earlier, I don't think reasonable people lay awake at night envisioning the various ways they can be injured or killed.  

So you'd say a reasonable person might be unaware of the potentiality of various threats, such as gunshot, etc.(?).

[Jack T. Cross]

...trying to figure out what you mean.

[Dos Equis]

So you'd say a reasonable person might be unaware of the potentiality of various threats, such as gunshot, etc.(?).

I say reasonable people don't worry about the various ways they can be injured or killed. 

[Jack T. Cross]

I say reasonable people don't worry about the various ways they can be injured or killed.  

...but they become obligated to do that, if they're going to shoot someone in a way that is viewed as reasonable. Right?

[Dos Equis]

...but they become obligated to do that, if they're going to shoot someone in a way that is viewed as reasonable. Right?

No.  Where are you getting that from?

[Jack T. Cross]

No.  Where are you getting that from?

If a person isn't giving consideration for the potentiality of the perceived threat he is responding to, how can he say whether his act of deadly force is reasonable?

[Jack T. Cross]

Will pick this up again soon, bro. Take care.

[Dos Equis]

If a person isn't giving consideration for the potentiality of the perceived threat he is responding to, how can he say whether his act of deadly force is reasonable?

It depends on the circumstances.  If the perceived threat is outside, in broad daylight, and the perceived threat is a gun, then the attacker should have something that looks like a gun.  If the threat is fists, then the attacker wouldn't be holding anything.

If the threat is at night, and you cannot tell what the person has, but they're on you're property, then it doesn't matter whether you think they have a gun, knife, bat, etc. or just their fists.  It's the conduct that matters (for example, trying to open someone's door).   

[tonymctones]

It depends on the circumstances.  If the perceived threat is outside, in broad daylight, and the perceived threat is a gun, then the attacker should have something that looks like a gun.  If the threat is fists, then the attacker wouldn't be holding anything.

If the threat is at night, and you cannot tell what the person has, but they're on you're property, then it doesn't matter whether you think they have a gun, knife, bat, etc. or just their fists.  It's the conduct that matters (for example, trying to open someone's door).   

or walking towards after being told identify themselves with a gun pointed at them.

[240 is Back]

If the threat is at night, and you cannot tell what the person has, but they're on you're property, then it doesn't matter whether you think they have a gun, knife, bat, etc. or just their fists.  It's the conduct that matters (for example, trying to open someone's door).   

Yes, you can't just shoot people in yards because you can't make out their hands.

or walking towards after being told identify themselves with a gun pointed at them.

Tony, suppose your dog runs into my yard.
Suppose I come outside with a shotgun and order you to the ground.
Then I start blasting if you don't obey.

That wouldn't be cool, not one bit.  Nor would it be legal.

[OzmO]

or walking towards after being told identify themselves with a gun pointed at them.

Still not justification nor grounds to use deadly force.  No reasonable man would. 

And if it's that dark they don't know there is a gun on them, nor is it soething a reasonable man would assume on both sides.

[OzmO]

It depends on the circumstances.  If the perceived threat is outside, in broad daylight, and the perceived threat is a gun, then the attacker should have something that looks like a gun.  If the threat is fists, then the attacker wouldn't be holding anything.

If the threat is at night, and you cannot tell what the person has, but they're on you're property, then it doesn't matter whether you think they have a gun, knife, bat, etc. or just their fists.  It's the conduct that matters (for example, trying to open someone's door).   

There is a huge difference between forcing entry and knocking othe door and jiggling the handle.  That's why the article I posted talking about the Georgia law is relevant.   

And it wast his property.  He was visitor. 

[tonymctones]

Yes, you can't just shoot people in yards because you can't make out their hands.

yea b/c thats exactly what happend here, hendrix on one of his nightly patrols stumbled upon a man in his yard and indiscriminately executed him

Tony, suppose your dog runs into my yard.
Suppose I come outside with a shotgun and order you to the ground.
Then I start blasting if you don't obey.

That wouldn't be cool, not one bit.  Nor would it be legal.

you can troll better than this dumb ass, ive seen it...get on your game moron

[tonymctones]

Still not justification nor grounds to use deadly force.  No reasonable man would. 

And if it's that dark they don't know there is a gun on them, nor is it soething a reasonable man would assume on both sides.

heyyyyyy!!!!

look you finally get it that this is the moment when the reasonable man standard will be judged!!!!

I think you have a valid opinion here, I think someone who feels like it was reasonable has a valid opinion too...well just have to wait and see what the DA says

[blacken700]

with the logic going on here it's pretty much ok to shoot anybody anytime if their on your land,just say you were scared

[tonymctones]

with the logic going on here it's pretty much ok to shoot anybody anytime if their on your land,just say you were scared

yup b/c thats exactly what happend here right libtard....

[OzmO]

heyyyyyy!!!!

look you finally get it that this is the moment when the reasonable man standard will be judged!!!!

I think you have a valid opinion here, I think someone who feels like it was reasonable has a valid opinion too...well just have to wait and see what the DA says

I have been kind of saying that for a while and using it in my arguments with you.   So I don't get it. Lol

I understand what you are saying with the reasonable man standard and just pretty much reworded my arguments to use that as a starting point.  In law I guess it's not the same thing.

[OzmO]

yup b/c thats exactly what happend here right libtard....

This is a pretty good debate topic.  It also hasn't digressed too much into labeling and stereotyping political ideology fueled arguments usually go to.   

[tonymctones]

I have been kind of saying that for a while and using it in my arguments with you.   So I don't get it. Lol

I understand what you are saying with the reasonable man standard and just pretty much reworded my arguments to use that as a starting point.  In law I guess it's not the same thing.

you have been KINDA doing this yes I agree.

The issue is you want to say that b/c he went outside it shows a reasonable man wouldnt fear for bodily harm.

Here you left that nonsense out as it doesnt play into the actual shooting.

[tonymctones]

This is a pretty good debate topic.  It also hasn't digressed too much into labeling and stereotyping political ideology fueled arguments usually go to.   

sorry Oz idiocy needs to be called out and the idea that he went and shot him just b/c he was on his land is about as fucking idiotic as it gets.