Stand Your Ground Law's Latest Victim

[tonymctones]

LOL!  You were right?  Dude, he skated in fcking GEORGIA.  If there was ever a place in the USA where a man can fire a gun into shadows and kill a disabled war vet and avoid being charged, I'm pretty sure it's Georgia lol.

You act like it's some heroic win for gun lovers everywhere.

No, no no... It's simply an immature, emotional prick getting away with killing someone.  No need to run into that yard issuing orders, and firing into the unknown.  Police were on their way. 

Fcking celebrations going on because this assclown wasn't charged?  Gimme a break.  He's a piece of shit that killed an old guy cause he couldn't just sit in the house and let police do their job.  They were safely indoors.  He chose to run out and fire a gun, with police almost there. 

Im not acting like is a heroic win for gun lovers everywhere...IM ACTING LIKE ITS A HEROIC WIN FOR COMMON SENSE EVERYWHERE.

Which certainly explains why a fucking moron such as yourself is so upset by it.

[240 is Back]

Im not acting like is a heroic win for gun lovers everywhere...IM ACTING LIKE ITS A HEROIC WIN FOR COMMON SENSE EVERYWHERE.

Was Hendrix showing "common sense" by exiting a home in which he was safely locked, with police moments away, to put himself in a dark scary yard with an unknown person(s)?

Was Hendrix showing "common sense" by screaming at *something* in a bush in the darkness to get on the ground, then firing 4 rounds into it, without knowing was it was?

See, to me, both of these questions deliver a definite "NO!  He was NOT showing common sense!"   Therefore, any win for him/his actions is NOT a win for common sense.   

It's a win for the small segment of the population that prefers to rush into initiating one-sided shootouts with unknown figures in the darkness of the yard, before the police can arrive with a spotlight and quickly sort out the situation.  If Hendrix just waits another 3 minutes, police wrap the old man in a blanket and take him home.  THAT is the common sense move.  Sending him home in the bodybag was a rash, emotion, angry, bonehead idiotic move.  Definitely NOT a win for common sense, IMHO.

[tonymctones]

Was Hendrix showing "common sense" by exiting a home in which he was safely locked, with police moments away, to put himself in a dark scary yard with an unknown person(s)?

Was Hendrix showing "common sense" by screaming at *something* in a bush in the darkness to get on the ground, then firing 4 rounds into it, without knowing was it was?

See, to me, both of these questions deliver a definite "NO!  He was NOT showing common sense!"   Therefore, any win for him/his actions is NOT a win for common sense.   

It's a win for the small segment of the population that prefers to rush into initiating one-sided shootouts with unknown figures in the darkness of the yard, before the police can arrive with a spotlight and quickly sort out the situation.  If Hendrix just waits another 3 minutes, police wrap the old man in a blanket and take him home.  THAT is the common sense move.  Sending him home in the bodybag was a rash, emotion, angry, bonehead idiotic move.  Definitely NOT a win for common sense, IMHO.

was hendrix within his rights to leave his house to protect his property?

was hendrix within his rights to defend himself from a person who had tried to gain access to his home in the early morning hours, who would not respond to commands to stop or identify himself?

Sending him home in the bodybag was a rash, emotion, angry, bonehead idiotic move.

There you go making shit up again, what a fucking retard you are...

Definitely NOT a win for common sense, IMHO.

doesnt suprise me, you dont generally display any amount of common sense.

[240 is Back]

was hendrix within his rights to leave his house to protect his property?

You are suddenly changing the debate from "common sense" to "legal".

He lives in shit ass georgia and got away with it.  Legally, he's good.

COMMON SENSE - which you intro'd - really doesn't live near Hendrix.  Sorry, but running into your yard at 2am to shoot at shadows because you don't feel like waiting for popo to arrives.

Legally, yes, he was covered.  Common sense?  Hendrix was the polar opposite.  Common sense says you wait inside and let the cops deal with the person. 

[tonymctones]

You are suddenly changing the debate from "common sense" to "legal".

He lives in shit ass georgia and got away with it.  Legally, he's good.

COMMON SENSE - which you intro'd - really doesn't live near Hendrix.  Sorry, but running into your yard at 2am to shoot at shadows because you don't feel like waiting for popo to arrives.

Legally, yes, he was covered.  Common sense?  Hendrix was the polar opposite.  Common sense says you wait inside and let the cops deal with the person. 

in this instance legality is common sense to those of use with common sense.....

[OzmO]

again in the exact same scenario that hendrix was in. If it wasnt an old man but a man who was intent on doing him harm either by robbing or killing him and his girlfriend. If it had turned out that the unknown person approaching who wasnt responding to commands and wasnt answering was holding a steel tire iron instead of a flash light and had malicious intent would you still think hendrix should be charged?

How can the intent to do harm be proven?

[240 is Back]

in this instance legality is common sense to those of use with common sense.....

sorry, that doesn't work.  legality is either common sense 100% of the time, or none of the time... you can't just randomly pick and choose which times they're connected.  It's your opinion, and we're talking facts here.

tony, would you want Hendrix living next door to you?  yes or no?

[tonymctones]

How can the intent to do harm be proven?

ahh so in your mind b/c intent to harm cant be proven you have to wait until someone tries to harm you before you can take measures to prevent potential harm?

In other words I have to wait for the guy to swing at me with the metal tire iron before i can defend myself?

[tonymctones]

sorry, that doesn't work.  legality is either common sense 100% of the time, or none of the time... you can't just randomly pick and choose which times they're connected.  It's your opinion, and we're talking facts here.

tony, would you want Hendrix living next door to you?  yes or no?

absolutely they can coincide with one another in certain instances and not in others....LMFAO are you fucking serious moron?

[240 is Back]

absolutely they can coincide with one another in certain instances and not in others....LMFAO are you fucking serious moron?

Would you want JoeHendrix living next door to you?  Yes or no?

[tonymctones]

Would you want JoeHendrix living next door to you?  Yes or no?

wouldnt care one way or the other

[240 is Back]

wouldnt care one way or the other

would you want a joe hendrix living in every house on your block?

You know, the kinda dude that panics and fires 4 bullets into the backyard when something startles him?  A dude who has to get his trigger time before the police can get there?

Sheeeit... anyone with common sense would want that dude living on the other side of the country lol.  His reckless shooting, willingness to fire at the unknown, heck, where did the other 3 bullets land?  lol

[tonymctones]

would you want a joe hendrix living in every house on your block?

You know, the kinda dude that panics and fires 4 bullets into the backyard when something startles him?  A dude who has to get his trigger time before the police can get there?

Sheeeit... anyone with common sense would want that dude living on the other side of the country lol.  His reckless shooting, willingness to fire at the unknown, heck, where did the other 3 bullets land?  lol

again wouldnt bother me one way or another.

They guy tried to gain entrance into his house, called out to find out what he wanted, ordered the guy to stop.

I wouldnt have a problem with a neighbor like hendrix or a block full of neighbors like hendrix...

[OzmO]

ahh so in your mind b/c intent to harm cant be proven you have to wait until someone tries to harm you before you can take measures to prevent potential harm?

In other words I have to wait for the guy to swing at me with the metal tire iron before i can defend myself?

Your post to me before this included an incorrect assumption and so does this one.

First off how do you conclude someone intended to harm someone?  

I want to know the basis you use to figure that.  How can you expect me to answer the question otherwise?

Secondly, as for your second incorrect assumption, how can you stereotype me into that category of people who practically have to be harmed to justify defending themselves?  Did you do come to this based solely on your first incorrect assumption?

I will tell you exactly what I think about any given situation and my answer will be my own. I have no problem calling out either side of the political isle. You know this.  

To save us some back and forth posting over your incorrect assumptions and stereotyping I will give my opinion on 4 scenarios based on the original details of the case.  Understand this though.  My opinion can change as the details change.

Scenario 1.  The original Hendrix case with all known facts.  No way he shouldn't get charged for the many reasons I listed in the thread.

Scenario 2.  Lets Say he had a crow bar in his hand and Hendrix saw it when he shot him.  Still, Hendrix wrongfully shot him.

Scenario 3.  Let's say he used the crow bar to attempt to break in the house, by breaking a window or prying into the door.   Hendrix is justified.

Scenario 4. Let's say Hendrix saw he had a gun and then shot him.  Hendrix is justified.  

[tonymctones]

Your post to me before this included an incorrect assumption and so does this one.

First off how do you conclude someone intended to harm someone?   

I want to know the basis you use to figure that.  How can you expect me to answer the question otherwise?

Secondly, as for your second incorrect assumption, how can you stereotype me into that category of people who practically have to be harmed to justify defending themselves?  Did you do come to this based solely on your first incorrect assumption?

I will tell you exactly what I think about any given situation and my answer will be my own. I have no problem calling out either side of the political isle. You know this. 

To save us some back and forth posting over your incorrect assumptions and stereotyping I will give my opinion on 4 scenarios based on the original details of the case. Understand this though.  My opinion can change as the details change.

Scenario 1.  The original Hendrix case with all known facts.  No way he shouldn't get charged for the many reasons I listed in the thread.

Scenario 2.  Lets Say he had a crow bar in his hand and Hendrix saw it when he shot him.  Still, Hendrix wrongfully shot him.

Scenario 3.  Let's say he used the crow bar to attempt to break in the house, by breaking a window or prying into the door.   Hendrix is justified.

Scenario 4. Let's say Hendrix saw he had a gun and then shot him.  Hendrix is justified. 

your question was how can one know intent?

The fact is in the moment unless the person acts to harm you or tells you they are going to, you cannot know intent. So the defacto stance youre taking is that unless they act or tell you they are going to you cannot know intent and therefore cannot defend yourself.

If the fact a person tried to gain access to your home, would not respond verbally to any calls, kept advancing when told not to and was holding what could have been a blunt object doesnt raise to the level of justified self defense in your mind, what does short of them actually trying to harm you?

[OzmO]

your question was how can one know intent?

The fact is in the moment unless the person acts to harm you or tells you they are going to, you cannot know intent. So the defacto stance youre taking is that unless they act or tell you they are going to you cannot know intent and therefore cannot defend yourself.

That all depends on many things.   Provide other examples or use the ones I provided. Otherwise all YOU are doing is.making assumptions again.

If the fact a person tried to gain access to your home, would not respond verbally to any calls, kept advancing when told not to and was holding what could have been a blunt object doesnt raise to the level of justified self defense in your mind, what does short of them actually trying to harm you?

No, the man jiggled the handle. Nothing more.  That does not constitute a B and E.  Hendrix left his home when he was NOT in any danger, sought out the person who.was not in the act of B and E committing no crime and shot him.   Hendrix should.be charged. 

If you want to debate scenario 2 based on the details of the Hendrix case. There was no attempted B and E hence, Hendrix had no reason to think a crow bar was meant for harm especially since it was never used at the door.  Hendrix didn't have a legitimate reason to.believe he and his family was in danger and showed by leaving his family and venturing outside.  He then shoots a man with a crow bar who could.have had it for a number of.reasons not.involving violence or B and E. 

PS I understand how the law worked in the actual case and see why they ruled it the way they did.  I don't agree with it though. 

[tonymctones]

That all depends on many things.   Provide other examples or use the ones I provided. Otherwise all YOU are doing is.making assumptions again.

No, the man jiggled the handle. Nothing more.  That does not constitute a B and E.  Hendrix left his home when he was NOT in any danger, sought out the person who.was not in the act of B and E committing no crime and shot him.   Hendrix should.be charged. 

If you want to debate scenario 2 based on the details of the Hendrix case. There was no attempted B and E hence, Hendrix had no reason to think a crow bar was meant for harm especially since it was never used at the door.  Hendrix didn't have a legitimate reason to.believe he and his family was in danger and showed by leaving his family and venturing outside.  He then shoots a man with a crow bar who could.have had it for a number of.reasons not.involving violence or B and E. 

PS I understand how the law worked in the actual case and see why they ruled it the way they did.  I don't agree with it though. 

you have the right to defend your life and PROPERTY...understand that means he is well within his right to go outside.

I never said the man tried to B&E but the fact is YES he did try and gain entry into the house, that is indisputable. He did not fire the gun as soon as he opened the door so whether or not he felt their was reason to fear for his life at that time means absolutely nothing. What matters is whether or not he felt his life was in danger when he pulled the trigger.

If you dont think that the fact a person tried to gain access to your home, would not respond verbally to any calls, kept advancing when told not to and was holding what could have been a blunt object means you should be fearful....I seriously do not know what would besides someone actually trying to harm you.

[OzmO]

you have the right to defend your life and PROPERTY...understand that means he is well within his right to go outside.

I don't believe the Hendrix incident falls into this category.  I am pretty sure that wasn't the key to Hendrix being not charged.  I think it had to with him fearing for his life.  

I never said the man tried to B&E but the fact is YES he did try and gain entry into the house, that is indisputable.

B and E is a crime.  Jiggling a door handle isn't.  A door handle Jiggling  doesn't mean anyone is in danger.  Jiggling a door handle doesn't mean a person is trying to illegally gain entry into a house to commit a crime.

He did not fire the gun as soon as he opened the door so whether or not he felt their was reason to fear for his life at that time means absolutely nothing. What matters is whether or not he felt his life was in danger when he pulled the trigger.

I think his "feeling" has to have some factual basis for it to be justified.  I don't think it was in this case.

If you dont think that the fact a person tried to gain access to your home, would not respond verbally to any calls, kept advancing when told not to and was holding what could have been a blunt object means you should be fearful....I seriously do not know what would besides someone actually trying to harm you.

I assume we are talking about scenario #2.  He wasn't charging him.   He's not raising the crow bar either.  Back away and continue to warn him. He's walking towards you, crow bar down, you are in no danger.  You have a gun. You keep your distance.  The police are on their way.     He charges, he raises crow bar you shot.... justified.  

[240 is Back]

B and E is a crime.  Jiggling a door handle isn't.  A door handle Jiggling  doesn't mean anyone is in danger.  Jiggling a door handle doesn't mean a person is trying to illegally gain entry into a house to commit a crime.

Just standing my ground on behalf of my inanimate door.

[Dos Equis]

Holy smokes.  You guys are still at this?  lol

I'm not sure this even went to a grand jury?  It's over already.

[OzmO]

Holy smokes.  You guys are still at this?  lol

I'm not sure this even went to a grand jury?  It's over already.

Not really.  We are using the incident as part of the discussion.  

If it was the exact same scenario and he shot a guy that was there to rob/murder him would you feel the same way?

Murder no

Robbery depends. 

[Dos Equis]

Not really.  We are using the incident as part of the discussion.   

Sounds like you guys are still arguing over what happened and whether or not he should have been charged.  

[OzmO]

Sounds like you guys are still arguing over what happened and whether or not he should have been charged.  

Its a case that has plenty of details saving us the need to invent a hypothetical scenario.

[Dos Equis]

Its a case that has plenty of details saving us the need to invent a hypothetical scenario.

Why do you think this scenario would play out any differently if it happened again someplace else? 

[OzmO]

Why do you think this scenario would play out any differently if it happened again someplace else? 

What do you mean?

From the POV of Hendrix, the Police, State laws etc.?