Stand Your Ground Law's Latest Victim

[tonymctones]

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Reasonable+person+standardhttp://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Reasonable+person+standard

Reasonable Person
A phrase frequently used in tort and Criminal Law to denote a hypothetical person in society who exercises average care, skill, and judgment in conduct and who serves as a comparative standard for determining liability.
 
The decision whether an accused is guilty of a given offense might involve the application of an objective test in which the conduct of the accused is compared to that of a reasonable person under similar circumstances. In most cases, persons with greater than average skills, or with special duties to society, are held to a higher standard of care. For example, a physician who aids a person in distress is held to a higher standard of care than is an ordinary person.
 

[OzmO]

yes Ozmo that is how the law works...hahahah and I didnt say if they felt they were in danger I said if they felt their LIFE WAS IN DANGER...

No weapon, no B & E.....

There lives where in danger.  

The defense will have to actually prove they was danger which they can't do.

and its not a deflection its a scenario to show you just how absurd your stance is and it cuts straight to the point, which is why you dont want to answer it.

but sure FACT: THATS HOW THE LAW WORKS....

Is it a deflection.  If you have to use something isn't part of the case to show how absurd my point is, it only shows your desperation.  So quit it.

[tonymctones]

No weapon, no B & E.....

There lives where in danger. 

nobody said their lives were in danger only that ITS REASONABLE TO BELIEVE THEY WERE!!!

The defense will have to actually prove they was danger which they can't do.

Sweet Jesus, no they wont...what they will have to prove is that a reasonable person in that situation would believe they were in danger and that will be pretty easy to do.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Reasonable+person+standardhttp://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Reasonable+person+standard

Reasonable Person
A phrase frequently used in tort and Criminal Law to denote a hypothetical person in society who exercises average care, skill, and judgment in conduct and who serves as a comparative standard for determining liability.
 
The decision whether an accused is guilty of a given offense might involve the application of an objective test in which the conduct of the accused is compared to that of a reasonable person under similar circumstances. In most cases, persons with greater than average skills, or with special duties to society, are held to a higher standard of care. For example, a physician who aids a person in distress is held to a higher standard of care than is an ordinary person.
 

[tonymctones]

I dont know what the standard of law is in their state as far was whats legal for deadly force but in certain states you dont have to fear for your life.

[tonymctones]

Is it a deflection.  If you have to use something isn't part of the case to show how absurd my point is, it only shows your desperation.  So quit it.

the law isnt applicable to this case alone, the laws you keep making up would be applicable to all situations as well.

I used your law and applied it to a scenario to show you how absurd that would be. Im sorry it offends you but you seem to be A-Ok with making up scenarios when you were applying your made up law to walking down the street.

[OzmO]

the law isnt applicable to this case alone, the laws you keep making up would be applicable to all situations as well.

I used your law and applied it to a scenario to show you how absurd that would be. Im sorry it offends you but you seem to be A-Ok with making up scenarios when you were applying your made up law to walking down the street.

No, I am applying scenarios to support my point.  You are applying scenarios and stereotypes to me claiming how i would judge a situation that doesnt apply to the case. 

Get it now?   Poeple do it here all the time.  Normally I don't care, but I want to keep the discussion here focused.

nobody said their lives were in danger only that ITS REASONABLE TO BELIEVE THEY WERE!!!
Sweet Jesus, no they wont...what they will have to prove is that a reasonable person in that situation would believe they were in danger and that will be pretty easy to do.

That's it, he doesn't have reason to believe he was mortal danger or otherwise.   No weapon, no b & e!
   

[OzmO]

Like I said, it's a whole different story if he shot him in the act of b & e.  but there was no b & e tobegin with.

[tonymctones]

No, I am applying scenarios to support my point.  You are applying scenarios and stereotypes to me claiming how i would judge a situation that doesnt apply to the case.  

Get it now?   Poeple do it here all the time.  Normally I don't care, but I want to keep the discussion here focused.

That's it, he doesn't have reason to believe he was mortal danger or otherwise.   No weapon, no b & e!
  

no but i do get that you ok with you doing something and then calling out others for doing the same thing

I wasnt applying them to you, i initially asked and did so MULTIPLE TIMES WITH NO ANSWER...afterwards i said "I GUESS" you would be ok with him shooting him.

I never said you would...

and thats great you have an opinion on it, the FACT IS HOWEVER THEY DONT HAVE TO PROVE HE WAS IN DANGER...WHICH IS WHAT YOU SAID!!!
they have to prove that a reasonable person would feel they were in danger.

[OzmO]

no but i do get that you ok with you doing something and then calling out others for doing the same thing

I wasnt applying them to you, i initially asked and did so MULTIPLE TIMES WITH NO ANSWER...afterwards i said "I GUESS" you would be ok with him shooting him.

I never said you would...

and thats great you have an opinion on it, the FACT IS HOWEVER THEY DONT HAVE TO PROVE HE WAS IN DANGER...WHICH IS WHAT YOU SAID!!!
they have to prove that a reasonable person would feel they were in danger.

. Playing word games now?   I haven't been telling you how you would react or attacking for your POV.

Yes, they do.  Otherwise, "reasonable" people can shot people when they feel threatened regardless of whether they are.

[tonymctones]

. Playing word games now?   I haven't been telling you how you would react or attacking for your POV.

Yes, they do.  Otherwise, "reasonable" people can shot people when they feel threatened regardless of whether they are.

fucking shit, whatever Oz youre so willfully ignorant about this is not worth my time.

I posted a link to show you and you skipped right over it never addressing it and continued with the making incorrect statements and looks like you will continue to do so.

have a good one bro

[OzmO]

fucking shit, whatever Oz youre so willfully ignorant about this is not worth my time.

I posted a link to show you and you skipped right over it never addressing it and continued with the making incorrect statements and looks like you will continue to do so.

have a good one bro

Ok, from deflection, to word games, now to ad hom.  This is how you debate Tony?

Yes, there is a definition for "reasonable person".  Regardless, as I have said, &guy has to be established.  Facts show they weren't in danger, especially when you factor in no weapon, no b and e, and he left the safety of his home and shot the guy in the yard.  Otherwise, people can just kill other people simply because they "feel" threatened.  That's stupid.

[240 is Back]

the dude wanted to punish the door jiggler.  He wasn't scared, wasn't threatened, he was pissed.

Can we hear the 911 tape already so I can be proven right or wrong?

LOL in advance @ "Just cause he was saying mean things about police response time, this A-hole outside, and how these door jigglers always get away doesn't mean he fired in anything other than total fear".

I'm sick of idiots that fire guns when they don't have to.  They belong in prison. You dont shoot until ABSOLUTELY needed.  If you don't know what a silhouette is, you are scared, you hit the deck and get back inside.  fuccking idiot.

[Jack T. Cross]

Oz and Tony: It looks like you're saying close to the same thing, in your own ways. So calm down, girls. (btw, was waiting for this one to turn. I knew it would, lol)

[tonymctones]

Ok, from deflection, to word games, now to ad hom.  This is how you debate Tony?

Yes, there is a definition for "reasonable person".  Regardless, as I have said,  danger has to be established.  Facts show they weren't in danger, especially when you factor in no weapon, no b and e, and he left the safety of his home and shot the guy in the yard.  Otherwise, people can just kill other people simply because they "feel" threatened.  That's stupid.

it wasnt any more a deflection than you made up scenario, there are no word games in a definition either.

danger only has to be established so far as the reasonable person standard. The person does not have to be in actual danger, simply in a situation where a reasonable person would believe they were in danger.

THUS THE "REASONABLE PERSON STANDARD"

If a reasonable person in that same situation would have acted the same way, yes you can kill someone without actually being in danger.

Now you can argue a reasonable person wouldnt have acted that way b/c there was no real attempt at B&E etc. and thats fine all day long.

But it is completely FALSE to say that if youre not in real danger you can never defend yourself.

[tonymctones]

Oz and Tony: It looks like you're saying close to the same thing, in your own ways. So calm down, girls. (btw, was waiting for this one to turn. I knew it would, lol)

we agree up until a point and then take completely different routes.

Mine being back by the law, i would like to see why Oz feels the way he does.

Do you have some articles that cause you to believe what you do Oz?

[240 is Back]

I only know of being able to shoot someone using Castle Doctrine (in your house/car doing anything) or outside IF you fear for your life or in order to stop a forcible felony from being committed.

What I'm asking here - What defense can this man use for shooting?  He was scared?  Is that what youre saying?

What is the exact justification for shooting? 

[tonymctones]

I only know of being able to shoot someone using Castle Doctrine (in your house/car doing anything) or outside IF you fear for your life or in order to stop a forcible felony from being committed.

What I'm asking here - What defense can this man use for shooting?  He was scared?  Is that what youre saying?

What is the exact justification for shooting? 

nobody cares zimmerman STFU!!!

[tonymctones]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/04/us/one-man-lost-and-impaired-the-other-fearful-and-armed.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

good article explaining that you dont actually have to be in danger....

"Within two weeks, investigators will meet with Herbert Franklin, the district attorney, to decide if Mr. Hendrix will face charges. Mr. Franklin will be guided by what legal experts call the “reasonable person” standard as outlined in the state’s 2006 self-defense law.

“In order to use deadly force, you have to reasonably believe you are in imminent danger,” said the Gwinnett County district attorney, Danny Porter. “You weigh whether the homeowner can show he was in fear of receiving death or great bodily injury.”

understand this Ozmo YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE IN ACTUAL DANGER, YOU NEED TO BE IN A SITUTATION THAT A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD BELIEVE THEY WERE IN DANGER

[OzmO]

it wasnt any more a deflection than you made up scenario, there are no word games in a definition either.

danger only has to be established so far as the reasonable person standard. The person does not have to be in actual danger, simply in a situation where a reasonable person would believe they were in danger.

THUS THE "REASONABLE PERSON STANDARD"

If a reasonable person in that same situation would have acted the same way, yes you can kill someone without actually being in danger.

Now you can argue a reasonable person wouldnt have acted that way b/c there was no real attempt at B&E etc. and thats fine all day long.

But it is completely FALSE to say that if youre not in real danger you can never defend yourself.

Not if Hendrix doesn't show himself to be in danger by his own account AND he leaves the safety if his home.  It comes back to no weapon no b and e.  With out a person actually being in danger, it would Open the door to killing only cause a person felt threatened.   There has to be some actual danger.

PS:  do you really think  I am Talking about the definition when I said word games?  Seriously?

And the thing you just posted Tony, the crux here is did Hendrix have reason to beleive?  No.   No weapon, no b and e!

[tonymctones]

so list the things we know factor into this case

1. imminent death is not the standard
2. you dont have to prove you are actually in danger only that a reasonable person in your situation would have.

[240 is Back]

nobody cares zimmerman STFU!!!

I'm not talking about zimm - I'm talking about the hendrix shooting.

What was his legal justification for shooting?  "I was scared"?  I don't know what legal premise that is, exactly?

Not forcible felony.  Not castle doctrine.  What is the legal justification?  "I was scared" =

[tonymctones]

Not if Hendrix doesn't show himself to be in danger by his own account AND he leaves the safety if his home.  It comes back to no weapon no b and e.  With out a person actually being in danger, it would Open the door to killing only cause a person felt threatened.   There has to be some actual danger.

PS:  do you really think  I am Talking about the definition when I said word games?  Seriously?

And the thing you just posted Tony, the crux here is did Hendrix have reason to beleive?  No.   No weapon, no b and e!

thats what the debate is about Oz, what youve said specifically is that if a person is not in real danger then they cant defend themself...WHICH IS COMPLETELY FALSE!!!!!

If a reasonable person in his situation would have felt they were in danger of great bodily injury it doesnt matter if they guy wasnt trying to B&E or that he didnt have a weapon. If thats the case the DA will say he acted like a reasonable person would in that situation and no charges will be filled.

he did not know the old guy wasnt armed and was not trying to b&e, youre taking facts discovered after the fact and trying to apply them to how he acted before they were known

[tonymctones]

Oz if you want to argue that he didnt act like a reasonable person thats fine.

I think trying to apply knowledge gained after the fact to his thinking before they were known is pretty bad and wont hold up but thats fine.

The fact is however you DO NOT HAVE TO BE IN ACTUAL DANGER TO DEFEND YOURSELF

[tonymctones]

I'm not talking about zimm - I'm talking about the hendrix shooting.

What was his legal justification for shooting?  "I was scared"?  I don't know what legal premise that is, exactly?

Not forcible felony.  Not castle doctrine.  What is the legal justification?  "I was scared" =

well zimmerman Ill tell it to you like this.

I think he definitely has a case for I felt I was in danger of great bodily harm. Whether that holds up or not, who knows...

Fact of the matter is it wasnt illegal for him to go outside and that has no bearing on the case just like zimmerman following up on trayvon had no bearing on that case.

Btw the cops were still 6 mins away when he shot the man.

16 min reaction time??? fucking really?

and libtards like you want to take away guns from people

[Jack T. Cross]

we agree up until a point and then take completely different routes.

Mine being back by the law, i would like to see why Oz feels the way he does.

Do you have some articles that cause you to believe what you do Oz?

You're on different angles of the very same thing. What each of you says, applies. That's the way I see it.

Can't make too many judgments, though, without knowing more about the guy that pulled the trigger.

One thing is for sure: The deceased was failed by someone. Somebody out there should have known enough to watch over this person. He shouldn't have been in this situation.