Stand Your Ground Law's Latest Victim

[Dos Equis]

She may also be dyslexic and really scored 0.61

 

[OzmO]

I have no idea if his name was on the lease.  That doesn't matter.  That's really a dumb non-issue.  Nobody is talking about it.  I posted the article simply to show the media doesn't care if his name is on the lease.  If law enforcement or the prosector makes this an issue, then you'll have obviously have a point.  Until then, it's just message board nonsense.  

You were the one that brought up property, by saying it would be a whole lot different if it wasn't his property.  I pointed out that it wasn't in any sense of the word and you have back peddled ever since.

Also, it would be a much different situation if he wasn't on his own property.  

The point of me showing you your prior comments is you were actually ridiculing Tony because he didn't agree with your belief that you have to actually be in danger to use deadly force.  You're using the same kind of arguments here (ones that really don't make sense).  I understand you changed your position, but I mean think about it:  under your old position, which you all but called Tony stupid for not agreeing with, a person could not use deadly if force if someone was pointing an unloaded gun at them threatening to shoot them (and the person being threatened didn't know the gun was unloaded).  That really makes no sense.  You don't need to know the law to realize that's not a reasonable position.

 

When did i compare pointing an unloaded gun?

How is an unloaded gun even part of this debate?

Don't think you are making much sense here.

I didn't call Tony stupid, and i don't think he is at all or you, however i thought some of his arguments and reasoning were at the time.  In essence i thought he was saying all you have to be is scared.  Facts don't matter.   But, Facts do matter, because they influence what reasonable person would do.

You're doing the same thing with the whole intruder aspect.  Trying to actually make a distinction between someone trying to open a door at 4 a.m., twice, and "picking a lock" is not reasonable, particularly when someone was at the house about a week or so beforehand.  All I'm saying is you might want to pull back a bit.  

Its extremely reasonable because the acts are VERY different.  The sounds, the length of time, the location, the recognition.   JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING IS DIFFERENT.

And also logic prevails.......  why knock first?  

and then....  was there forced entry a week or so ago?   No, same thing.

[240 is Back]

sounds like this dude and his GF are just looking for reasons, any reason, why he shot.

We were freaked out from last week.
The police took too long.
Dude jiggled the handle then took off.
Some shape in yard woudln't obey my command.


it's weak shit - and if someone here lost a loved one because some jacked up dude decided to play "Fire into the darkness" instead of giving the police another few minutes to survive when he was perfectly safe inside - I think we'd be super duper pissed. 

At this point, it seems like those defending Hendrix are looking for tiny loopholes of how it might have been somewhat okay and possibly just a little legal to open fire.  I dont get it.  Conservatives are supposed to be all about upholding the law and actually  punishing people that shoot guns when they dont have to.  Liberals are supposed to be soft on crime, completely whining about how the shooter didn't mean to, he was just scared, oh his feelings, let's all cry and have a drum circle for him, let's make sure the shooter isn't feeling too sad, cause it's all about feelings.

Repubs toss irresponsible shooters in jail.  Period.  And this dude - justify the shooting any way you want - Fired his gun in a manner which any honest person would call irresponsible. 

[Dos Equis]

You were the one that brought up property, by saying it would be a whole lot different if it wasn't his property.  I pointed out that it wasn't in any sense of the word and you have back peddled ever since.
  

When did i compare pointing an unloaded gun?

How is an unloaded gun even part of this debate?

Don't think you are making much sense here.

I didn't call Tony stupid, and i don't think he is at all, however i thought some of his arguments and reasoning were at the time.

Its extremely reasonable because the acts are VERY different.  The sounds, the length of time, the location, the recognition.   JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING IS DIFFERENT.

And also logic prevails.......  why knock first?  

and then....  was there forced entry a week or so ago?   No, same thing.

I haven't backpedaled at all.  I still think it was his property based on what I've read and it doesn't matter whether is name is on the lease.  I don't think the lease issue matters.  It matters to you, but not to me.  

I was giving you the loaded gun example to show your earlier analysis was not reasonable, i.e., that someone has to be in actual danger before using deadly force.  

I said you "all but called" Tony stupid.  Look at your comments.  

Why knock and try and twice open the door?  Who knows?  Maybe the person is on drugs.  What is reasonable is to conclude the person has bad intentions.  

[OzmO]

I haven't backpedaled at all.  I still think it was his property based on what I've read and it doesn't matter whether is name is on the lease.  I don't think the lease issue matters.  It matters to you, but not to me.  

It doesn't matter to you but in society, in court, in liabiliy, etc it does.  Got it.     However, it mattered enough for you to use it in you argument:

Also, it would be a much different situation if he wasn't on his own property.

So which is it?

I was giving you the loaded gun example to show your earlier analysis was not reasonable, i.e., that someone has to be in actual danger before using deadly force.  

OK, I get what you are saying there, however, based on the known facts through the sequence of events there was no symbolic "gun" pointed at them.  

I said you "all but called" Tony stupid.  Look at your comments.  

We were both in heated debate, both pushing the envelope without digressing into direct ad hom.  

Why knock and try and twice open the door?  Who knows?  Maybe the person is on drugs.  What is reasonable is to conclude the person has bad intentions.  

Maybe the guy is running from a killer.  Maybe the was in an accident and has a gash in his throat.    Maybe its a rape victim with 10 feet of duck tap wrapped around her mouth.  Maybe its a deaf mute lost.

I would conclude he had bad intentions prolly by default.  But i am safe in my house, HE is not trying to force his way in.  I have called the cops.  They are on their way.......

[Dos Equis]

It doesn't matter to you but in society, in court, in liabiliy, etc it does.  Got it.     However, it mattered enough for you to use it in you argument:

So which is it?


OK, I get what you are saying there, however, based on the known facts through the sequence of events there was no symbolic "gun" pointed at them. 

We were both in heated debate, both pushing the envelope without digressing into direct ad hom.
Maybe the guy is running from a killer.  Maybe the was in an accident and has a gash in his throat.    Maybe its a rape victim with 10 feet of duck tap wrapped around her mouth.  Maybe its a deaf mute lost.

I said I still think it's his property.  There are many instances where all of the residents or "owners" of a property are not on the lease or deed.  Could be a credit issue.  But, as I've said several times, I still think it's his property.  Not sure how else to convey it.  Not an issue for me at all. 

I wasn't trying to say the guy had a gun pointed at him.  Was purely a hypothetical. 

Deaf mute?  Not you too?  He wasn't a deaf mute.  He talked to a cop about 1.5 hours before he was killed. 

[OzmO]

I said I still think it's his property.  There are many instances where all of the residents or "owners" of a property are not on the lease or deed.  Could be a credit issue.  But, as I've said several times, I still think it's his property.  Not sure how else to convey it.  Not an issue for me at all.  

No one else in the world seems to when comes down to reality.  and it was an issue for you, no denying it.  

I wasn't trying to say the guy had a gun pointed at him.  Was purely a hypothetical.  

yep

Deaf mute?  Not you too?  He wasn't a deaf mute.  He talked to a cop about 1.5 hours before he was killed.  

I  listed other possibilities.  He wasn't a rape victim either.

[Dos Equis]

No one else in the world seems to when comes down to reality.  and it was an issue for you, no denying it.  

yep

I  listed other possibilities.  He wasn't a rape victim either.

I'm not denying what I said and I stand by what I said. 

He wasn't stabbed, shot, slapped, etc., etc.  But you're not suggesting he was mute? 

[OzmO]

I'm not denying what I said and I stand by what I said. 

He wasn't stabbed, shot, slapped, etc., etc.  But you're not suggesting he was mute? 

I understand you are standing by what you said, but what you said is still incorrect.  He was a guest. 


You said maybe the person was on drugs, I listed a bunch of other maybes.  Remember, Hendrix doesn't know the intentions or the sitituation of the person knocking and jiggling the handle of his door at 4am. He can only assume and his assumption of a person with bad intentions is reasonable, but not certian in the absence of forced entry and disengagement of the previous action.  And those facts wild tell a reasonable man that he is not in imminent danger of death or injury at that time.   

[Dos Equis]

I understand you are standing by what you said, but what you said is still incorrect.  He was a guest.  


You said maybe the person was on drugs, I listed a bunch of other maybes.  Remember, Hendrix doesn't know the intentions or the sitituation of the person knocking and jiggling the handle of his door at 4am. He can only assume and his assumption of a person with bad intentions is reasonable, but not certian in the absence of forced entry and disengagement of the previous action.  And those facts wild tell a reasonable man that he is not in imminent danger of death or injury at that time.  

We just have to agree to disagree on the guest issue.  

No, he doesn't know precisely what the person wants.  But I've said all I can say about that.

You're not suggesting he was mute though are you?  

[OzmO]

Do you think i am suggesting something?

If so why?

[Dos Equis]

Do you think i am suggesting something?

If so why?

 Maybe its a deaf mute lost.

[OzmO]

This is what you think I was doing by that statement?   

[Dos Equis]

This is what you think I was doing by that statement?   

Dude.  Don't turn into Jack T. Cross on me.  lol.    Rather than assuming, I was asking.  Do you think the guy was mute? 

[OzmO]

Dude.  Don't turn into Jack T. Cross on me.  lol.    Rather than assuming, I was asking.  Do you think the guy was mute?  

Lol. You are  being a bit unclear.  You are asking me if I think the guy at the door was a mute?   I wasn't there.  How would I know that?  Do you think the guy was on drugs?

Please read again:

You said maybe the person was on drugs, I listed a bunch of other maybes.  Remember, Hendrix doesn't know the intentions or the sitituation of the person knocking and jiggling the handle of his door at 4am. He can only assume and his assumption of a person with bad intentions is reasonable, but not certian in the absence of forced entry and disengagement of the previous action.  And those facts wild tell a reasonable man that he is not in imminent danger of death or injury at that time.  

[Dos Equis]

Lol. You are  being a bit unclear.  You are asking me if I think the guy at the door was a mute?   I wasn't there.  How would I know that?  Do you think the guy was on drugs?

Please read again:

Two other people in this thread said the guy was mute.  I was just asking if you were saying the same thing.  If you're saying you don't know, then that answers my question. 

[OzmO]

I found this:
http://www.georgiapacking.org/GaCode/?title=16&chapter=3&section=23

O.C.G.A. § 16-3-23
Use of force in defense of habitation

A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a habitation; however, such person is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:

   (1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner and he or she reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence;

   (2) That force is used against another person who is not a member of the family or household and who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using such force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred; or

   (3) The person using such force reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.

[OzmO]

Two other people in this thread said the guy was mute.  I was just asking if you were saying the same thing.  If you're saying you don't know, then that answers my question. 

It was reported that the alzhimers had left Westbrook essentially mute.   

http://www.google.com/#q=hendrix+kills+72+year+old+mute+man

[Dos Equis]

It was reported that the alzhimers had left Westbrook essentially mute.  

http://www.google.com/#q=hendrix+kills+72+year+old+mute+man

Bad link.  Just took me to Google.  

I think one or two stories claimed he was mute and probably some others took that and ran with it, but he couldn't have been mute if he talked to a cop at 2:30 a.m.  I think if he was mute, the cop would have taken him into custody and tried to find out where he lived.

Here is something I posted earlier:  

For reasons that are not clear, Westbrook left his home and started walking. A deputy sheriff noticed him along a road around 2:20 a.m. and stopped to ask what he was doing, Walker County Sheriff Steve Wilson said. Westbrook told the officer that he was gathering mail and then planned to return to his home up a hill. While Westbrook's answers were curt, nothing about the conversation alarmed the deputy.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ALZHEIMERS_FATAL_SHOOTING?SITE=VANOV&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[OzmO]

INteresting one about the defense of owned property.

http://www.georgiapacking.org/GaCode/?title=16&chapter=3&section=24

O.C.G.A. § 16-3-24
Use of force in defense of property other than a habitation

(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with real property other than a habitation or personal property:

   (1) Lawfully in his possession;

   (2) Lawfully in the possession of a member of his immediate family; or

   (3) Belonging to a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect.

(b) The use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to prevent trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with real property other than a habitation or personal property is not justified unless the person using such force reasonably believes that it is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

[OzmO]

Bad link.  Just took me to Google. 

I think one or two stories claimed he was mute and probably some others took that and with it, but he couldn't have been mute if he talked to a cop at 2:30 a.m.  I think if he was mute, the cop would have taken him into custody and tried to find out where he lived.

Here is something I posted earlier: 

For reasons that are not clear, Westbrook left his home and started walking. A deputy sheriff noticed him along a road around 2:20 a.m. and stopped to ask what he was doing, Walker County Sheriff Steve Wilson said. Westbrook told the officer that he was gathering mail and then planned to return to his home up a hill. While Westbrook's answers were curt, nothing about the conversation alarmed the deputy.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ALZHEIMERS_FATAL_SHOOTING?SITE=VANOV&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Just type in Hendrix kills 72 year old mute man in the google search and you will see some articles saying it.

[Dos Equis]

Just type in Hendrix kills 72 year old mute man in the google search and you will see some articles saying it.

Yeah I've seen them.  They're clearly wrong. 

[OzmO]

Yeah I've seen them.  They're clearly wrong. 

Which makes me wonder why he didn't answer when Hendrix questioned him.    I don't know much about alzhimers and the effects.

[Dos Equis]

Which makes me wonder why he didn't answer when Hendrix questioned him.    I don't know much about alzhimers and the effects.

Probably the cold and confusion.  It's a terrible disease.  The real victims are family members, because the person suffering from the disease forgets quite a bit, including their friends and family.  Very sad for the family members. 

Also, wandering is a chronic problem. 

[OzmO]

Yeah it sounds like a stretch to call him mute, but it isn't a stretch to say he may have had a handicap in his ability to answer questions.