Stand Your Ground Law's Latest Victim

[OzmO]

seemed like thats what youre implying.

I agree the guy wasnt doing anything illegal but it seems like you think its absurd for the homeowner to feel threatened when someone is trying to open his door at 4am.

If all youre trying to say is they old man wasnt doing anything wrong I think most will agree to that but it seem like you want to say it wasnt logical for the homeowner to feel like he was in danger.

If you feel someone is trying to break into your house, you will feel youre in danger.
If someone is trying to open your door at 4 am, its reasonable to believe that someone is trying to break in

No I don't think it's absurd that he felt threaten.  Read more of my posts

No weapon no attempted b & e.  he knocked, jiggled handled.   

Hendrix left the safety of his house and killed a man.   

[240 is Back]

Hendriz wasn't scared when he was inside the house.  If so, he wouldn't have UNLOCKED IT and went into the darkness.

He only suddenly because totally scared for his life once he saw a silhouette that wouldn't obey him.  There was nobody at door, no risk of B&E.  No weapon.  He wasn't attacked in any way.  He was spooked that this silhouette had knocked and jiggled the door. 

To pass on charging him, we have to believe all of this - Anyone deathly afraid doesn't open the door.  Common sense - particuarly when police are close.

Now, to skip charging him, we have to 100% believe that hendrix is the kind of man that fears for his life when silhouettes don't obey him.  That's a pretty shallow rubric for who you shoot at 4 times.  If I see you, and I don't know who you are, but you don't do what I say - hey, I'm scared for my life and I get to kill you now.

dangerous precedent.  Sometimes I see joggers when I'm outside.  Somethings they have headphones on and cannot hear me.  They'll jog right along my property line.  Using the Hendrix rule, simply seeing a shape walking without answering is good enough to shoot.


Sheesh... this dickhead is a danger to society.  Why candy coat it?  NO ONE here would want hendrix living next door... cause when auntie ethel comes over to stay one day, she might get a little confused on her walk and try the wrong door...

[tonymctones]

No I don't think it's absurd that he felt threaten.  Read more of my posts

No weapon no attempted b & e.  he knocked, jiggled handled.   

Hendrix left the safety of his house and killed a man.   

oh I agree he should have not gone outside but that doesnt mean it was wrong for him to go outside.

He didnt know they guy wasnt trying to break into his house. You keep going back to the old senile mans intentions, the home owner didnt know his intentions.

[OzmO]

oh I agree he should have not gone outside but that doesnt mean it was wrong for him to go outside.

He didnt know they guy wasnt trying to break into his house. You keep going back to the old senile mans intentions, the home owner didnt know his intentions.

Yes, It wasn't wrong for him to go outside, it was a bad decision. 

Right, he did nt know his intentions but what he did know was that at the moment he decided to go out side the man wasn't trying to break into in house, was away from the door, and was trying trying to break in before or after.

Heres the thing, there isnt evidence of a physical threat.  At least not that we know now.   I don't see them letting this guy off the hook simply because he felt threatened that a guy was knocking on his door at 4 am, jiggled the knob, walk away from the door, didn't answer questions and walked towards Hendrix.

[tonymctones]

Yes, It wasn't wrong for him to go outside, it was a bad decision. 

Right, he did nt know his intentions but what he did know was that at the moment he decided to go out side the man wasn't trying to break into in house, was away from the door, and was trying trying to break in before or after.

Heres the thing, there isnt evidence of a physical threat.  At least not that we know now.   I don't see them letting this guy off the hook simply because he felt threatened that a guy was knocking on his door at 4 am, jiggled the knob, walk away from the door, didn't answer questions and walked towards Hendrix.

I agree very bad decision

just b/c he is away from the house doesnt mean in the mind of the home owner the guy wasnt trying to break into the house. ITS 4AM IN THE MORNING!!! he could have thought the guy was just looking for another entry point, maybe trying to break in to their cars etc.

What the old mans intentions dont matter in regards to what the homeowner thought his intentions were. I think there is plenty of evidence to show that the man felt physically threatened or at the least could have felt physically threatened. Whether they charge him with something or let him go is another thing.

[OzmO]

I agree very bad decision

just b/c he is away from the house doesnt mean in the mind of the home owner the guy wasnt trying to break into the house. ITS 4AM IN THE MORNING!!! he could have thought the guy was just looking for another entry point, maybe trying to break in to their cars etc.

What the old mans intentions dont matter in regards to what the homeowner thought his intentions were. I think there is plenty of evidence to show that the man felt physically threatened or at the least could have felt physically threatened. Whether they charge him with something or let him go is another thing.

There's no evidence he was physically threatened.

No attempted b & E
No weapon
No assault.
No verbal threats
No property damage
If you wanna argue knocking on the door and jiggling the knob is attempted B&E I think you will find that it isn't seen that way any where.

His defense is going to have to establish that he was physically threatened and they are going to have a real hard time doing that when he left the safety of his home and shot a unarmed man.

[tonymctones]

There's no evidence he was physically threatened.

No attempted b & E
No weapon
No assault.
No verbal threats
No property damage
If you wanna argue knocking on the door and jiggling the knob is attempted B&E I think you will find that it isn't seen that way any where.

His defense is going to have to establish that he was physically threatened and they are going to have a real hard time doing that when he left the safety of his home and shot a unarmed man.

Im not nor do I think anyone else is arguing he was actually physically threatened.

What we are saying is that he felt like he was in physical danger and yes that is definitely a logical conclusion.

In his situation Oz would you feel like you might be in physical danger after someone tried to gain entry into your house at 4 am?

[240 is Back]

He must have felt he was in ZERO physical danger when he was inside, with locked door.

Otherwise he woudln't have opened the door.

Tough for a juror to believe he wasn't scared by jiggling handle, but was scared of immanent death by shadow that didn't respond to him.

Actually... i'm a little shocked anyone is defending him.  I"m pretty sure if blacked & 240 had jumped on the "totally legal shoot!" from minute one, yall would be arguing he used excessive force, just to argue lol.

[tonymctones]

He must have felt he was in ZERO physical danger when he was inside, with locked door.

Otherwise he woudln't have opened the door.

Tough for a juror to believe he wasn't scared by jiggling handle, but was scared of immanent death by shadow that didn't respond to him.

Actually... i'm a little shocked anyone is defending him.  I"m pretty sure if blacked & 240 had jumped on the "totally legal shoot!" from minute one, yall would be arguing he used excessive force, just to argue lol.

yes b/c homes are 100% safe zones where nothing can happen to you or your property when you are locked inside.

is imminent death the standard here?

you said zimmerman was a totally legal shoot and we werent arguing excessive force where we there?

[240 is Back]

zimm was getting his ass kicked.

this dude was just pissed off about police taking too long, and the mute man disobeying him.  never took a beatdown lol.

[tonymctones]

zimm was getting his ass kicked.

this dude was just pissed off about police taking too long, and the mute man disobeying him.  never took a beatdown lol.

was the old guy a mute or are you just lying again...look who im asking, of course youre lying

what do you have to show that he was pissed off?

[OzmO]

Im not nor do I think anyone else is arguing he was actually physically threatened.

What we are saying is that he felt like he was in physical danger and yes that is definitely a logical conclusion.

In his situation Oz would you feel like you might be in physical danger after someone tried to gain entry into your house at 4 am?

Which bring us to my point from the beginning.   Are you justified by law in using deadly force because you feel you are in Danger or because you really are?

[240 is Back]

was the old guy a mute

Mr Westbrook, a former Air Force pilot, had been left mute by advanced Alzheimer's Disease

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2514803/Man-Alzheimers-shot-homeowner-ringing-doorbell.html#ixzz2mpeX7HQ3
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[tonymctones]

Which bring us to my point from the beginning.   Are you justified by law in using deadly force because you feel you are in Danger or because you really are?

I think that comes down to the reasonable person standard, would a reasonable person in that situation feel like they were in danger?

If you reasonably feel you are in danger, do you believe its ok to defend yourself oz?

[24KT]

I think that comes down to the reasonable person standard, would a reasonable person in that situation feel like they were in danger?

If you reasonably feel you are in danger, do you believe its ok to defend yourself oz?

This guy was NOT defending himself. He wasn't attacked. How can someone who is clearly the aggressor be considered "defending himself"? Only the state of Israel gets away with that, ...ordinary citizens don't.

[tonymctones]

This guy was NOT defending himself. He wasn't attacked. How can someone who is clearly the aggressor be considered "defending himself"? Only the state of Israel gets away with that, ...ordinary citizens don't.

the man tried to gain entry into his house, you are allowed to defend yourself and your property.

if someone was trying to open your door at 4 am would you feel threatened jagson?

[24KT]

the man tried to gain entry into his house, you are allowed to defend yourself and your property.

if someone was trying to open your door at 4 am would you feel threatened jagson?

I've experienced it many times, and I can tell you feeling threatened, ...and BEING threatened are two different things.

When I had my Harbourfront condo, there was a guy who constantly tried to get into my place at 2, 3, sometime 4 in the morning. He was always drunk, and mistook my door for his. I'd always walk him over to the other tower, and get him inside his place.

A few years later while living in the suburbs, my mother decided to hop on a plane and fly to Canada, and not tell anyone she was coming. By the time she landed, got through customs, collected her luggage, she thought it was too late to be calling, so instead she just arrived at my house, and tried to get in through the garage at 4 am. I was awake at the time, all alone in the house, and definitely heard someone trying to gain access via the garage. She figured she'd come in via the laundry room, since she had a key to the laundry room door. I was on the phone with 911 at the time, and knew that even though the intruder had gained entry into my garage, there was still another barrier they had to get through, ...and potentially many more barriers within my home, if they breached the laundry room door. 

Just because I FELT threatened, didn't mean my life was in danger at that point.
Had I simply done what Hendrix did, and shot at a silhouette, my mother would not be here today.
 

[tonymctones]

Just because I FELT threatened, didn't mean my life was in danger at that point.
Had I simply done what Hendrix did, and shot at a silhouette, my mother would not be here today.

agreed feeling threatened and being threatened are different things but what you just admitted is that it was logical to feel threatened in that situation. If it was logical to feel threatened then it should be logical to take steps to address that threat.

whether or not he was justified will come down to the reasonableness of his actions.

[24KT]

agreed feeling threatened and being threatened are different things but what you just admitted is that it was logical to feel threatened in that situation. If it was logical to feel threatened then it should be logical to take steps to address that threat.

whether or not he was justified will come down to the reasonableness of his actions.

The question is not whether or not he felt threatened, but rather one of whether was justified in using deadly force. He had already taken steps to address the threat. he'd called 911, and his doors were locked. What he did by going outside, was not addressing the threat. All he did by going outside was escalate the threat to Westbrook. If one had indeed existed for him, his actions would only have increased it

I've been on an elevator when some stepped on, ...and just the mere sight of them made me feel threatened. It doesn't give me the right to pull out a gun and shoot, ....and it sure didn't give him the right to shoot at a silhouette.

I guarantee you if that silhouette had been a police officer who was investigating his 911 call, there would be an entirely different dialogue occuring. His actions were stupid & foolhardly, and his possession of a weapon is a danger to others.

[tonymctones]

The question is not whether or not he felt threatened, but rather one of whether was justified in using deadly force. He had already taken steps to address the threat. he'd called 911, and his doors were locked. What he did by going outside, was not addressing the threat. All he did by going outside was escalate the threat to Westbrook. If one had indeed existed for him, his actions would only have increased it

I've been on an elevator when some stepped on, ...and just the mere sight of them made me feel threatened. It doesn't give me the right to pull out a gun and shoot, ....and it sure didn't give him the right to shoot at a silhouette.

I guarantee you if that silhouette had been a police officer who was investigating his 911 call, there would be an entirely different dialogue occuring. His actions were stupid & foolhardly, and his possession of a weapon is a danger to others.

agreed his actions were stupid but that doesnt make them illegal...

you pulling out a gun on an elevator just b/c someone got on you didnt like the look of is not reasonable.

Shooting at someone who tried to break into your house and is not responding to commands while you are pointing a gun at them maybe for many people.

[240 is Back]

He wasn't attacked.  Bottom line, he was not attacked.  We all have to agree there.   Jiggle handle and walked away.   Never touched him.

The stuff at the door wasn't a part of the shooting - If he was fearing for his life due to handle, he wouldn't have opened door.  Any reasonable jury will decide that. 

He shot because he feared a man in his yard that wouldn't obey a command to halt.  If the jury declares it's reasonable for a 33 year old man with a gun to be that scared of a silhouette, so be it. 

But you cannot say you feared for life due to jiggling - but you were not scared enough to stay locked in lol.  This case is a little silly... If trayvon shot zimmerman on trayvon's lawn because zimmerman, the drunk local dude with a busted hearing aide, didn't obey trayvon's command to halt... I doubt most people would support the shooting.

[tonymctones]

He wasn't attacked.  Bottom line, he was not attacked.  We all have to agree there.   Jiggle handle and walked away.   Never touched him.

The stuff at the door wasn't a part of the shooting - If he was fearing for his life due to handle, he wouldn't have opened door.  Any reasonable jury will decide that. 

He shot because he feared a man in his yard that wouldn't obey a command to halt.  If the jury declares it's reasonable for a 33 year old man with a gun to be that scared of a silhouette, so be it. 

But you cannot say you feared for life due to jiggling - but you were not scared enough to stay locked in lol.  This case is a little silly... If trayvon shot zimmerman on trayvon's lawn because zimmerman, the drunk local dude with a busted hearing aide, didn't obey trayvon's command to halt... I doubt most people would support the shooting.

fear of his life does not mean he didint feel threatened...

I asked you once already if imminent death was the standard of law here but you didnt answer.

Maybe he thought the guy was trying to steal his car or looking for another way in. Whatever reason he had for going outside doesnt make his actions once outside automatically illegal.

[240 is Back]

fear of his life does not mean he didint feel threatened...

I asked you once already if imminent death was the standard of law here but you didnt answer.

Maybe he thought the guy was trying to steal his car or looking for another way in. Whatever reason he had for going outside doesnt make his actions once outside automatically illegal.

I believe you can shoot to stop a forcible felony being committed, or if you fear for life.  Is that incorrect?

My point is that he is gonna have an awful tough time proving forcible felony - I mean, that's rape or murder or really violent beating IN ACTION, actually happening.  Now, fear for life, MAYBE, but he'd have to include the door jiggling in it, and that's gonna open the door for "why did you open the door if you were that scared"?

This is a case of a pissed off dude (police response time) going outside and trying to take control of a situation.  When the silhouette didn't obey him, he panicked and fired. 


Bottom line - I would rather have George Zimmerman be my next door neighbor, than this Hendrix guy.   Cause at least Zimm screamed for help for 30 or 45 seconds before shooting.  This guy wasn't touched and was just 'scared' and fired. 

[tonymctones]

I believe you can shoot to stop a forcible felony being committed, or if you fear for life.  Is that incorrect?

My point is that he is gonna have an awful tough time proving forcible felony - I mean, that's rape or murder or really violent beating IN ACTION, actually happening.  Now, fear for life, MAYBE, but he'd have to include the door jiggling in it, and that's gonna open the door for "why did you open the door if you were that scared"?

This is a case of a pissed off dude (police response time) going outside and trying to take control of a situation.  When the silhouette didn't obey him, he panicked and fired. 


Bottom line - I would rather have George Zimmerman be my next door neighbor, than this Hendrix guy.   Cause at least Zimm screamed for help for 30 or 45 seconds before shooting.  This guy wasn't touched and was just 'scared' and fired. 

i dont know the law in this state which is why i asked, is imminent death the standard of law in this state or not?

LMFAO you keep saying he was pissed but have no proof of it, par for the course for zimmerman 2.0 though

[240 is Back]

i dont know the law in this state which is why i asked, is imminent death the standard of law in this state or not?

LMFAO you keep saying he was pissed but have no proof of it, par for the course for zimmerman 2.0 though

Am I wrong about forcible felony being the standard for using deadly force in GA?

I want to hear the 911 tape... I may be wrong... but tony, IF the 911 tape shows an angry dude, bitching about police and/or the punk MFer in his yard... and the shooting happens after that... will you concede it was probably more about anger/punishment than fearing for his life?