Stand Your Ground Law's Latest Victim

[Jack T. Cross]

His widow has been doing everything possible, but if you've ever dealt with an individual with Alzheimers, sometimes, even despite your best efforts, they can and do get away.

What makes you say this, 24KT? General faith in the wife, or what?

That's why I find it so disturbing that he had encountered the officer, and the officer didn't think anything was amiss. Anyone else might have had to endure a thorough pat down and warrant check.

Yes. Real "funny" how that works with cops. Too often, they seem to have an uncanny instinct to do the WRONG thing.

[tonymctones]

How could he be mute if he had a conversation with a cop two hours before the shooting? 

I meant to circle back to 240's idiocy but got side tracked

[24KT]

What makes you say this, 24KT? General faith in the wife, or what?

Yes. Real "funny" how that works with cops. Too often, they seem to have an uncanny instinct to do the WRONG thing.

People with Alzheimers don't know they're supposed to stay in the house.

Half the time they think it's still 1978. If they encounter a locked or barricaded door, they're going to open it, and not think twice.

[tonymctones]

This says it all....


How can you feel you were in imminent danger, fear of death, or receiving bodily injury when all that was happening was the door bell ringing and the knob jiggling, there was no attempted forced entry and then you decide to leave the safety of your home to confront who ever is out there?

FEAR=  Fuck Everything And Run   

b/c that wasnt all that happened, what youre doing is 1) applying information gained after the fact to his mindset at that time which is stupid at best and intellectually dishonest at worst and 2) cherry picking information about the incident.

Dont worry about the fact the guy was still wandering around his house, dont worry about the fact they guy didnt identify himself when told to at the end of a gun, dont worry about the fact the man kept advancing towards the man with a gun....

[OzmO]

b/c that wasnt all that happened, what youre doing is 1) applying information gained after the fact to his mindset at that time which is stupid at best and intellectually dishonest at worst and 2) cherry picking information about the incident.

Dont worry about the fact the guy was still wandering around his house, dont worry about the fact they guy didnt identify himself when told to at the end of a gun, dont worry about the fact the man kept advancing towards the man with a gun....

What info gained after the fact?

Someone was knocking on his door, jiggling the knob.   No forced entry.

With those facts known at the time how can you tell me imminent death, danger, bodily injury?

The knocking stopped, he had 911 on the phone and the decided to leave his wife and safe home.

With those facts known at that time how can you tell me imminent death, danger, bodily injury?

While outside the man didn't respond to question and was walking towards him.  No running, not walking aggressively etc.

With those facts know at that time how can you tell me imminent death, danger, bodily injury?

Maybe the last instance, but did Hendrix say he thought he had a weapon?

[Jack T. Cross]

People with Alzheimers don't know they're supposed to stay in the house.

Half the time they think it's still 1978. If they encounter a locked or barricaded door, they're going to open it, and not think twice.

Obviously, 24KT. That's why it would be advisable to have a door alert in such a situation.

[tonymctones]

What info gained after the fact?

Someone was knocking on his door, jiggling the knob.   No forced entry.

With those facts known at the time how can you tell me imminent death, danger, bodily injury?

The knocking stopped, he had 911 on the phone and the decided to leave his wife and safe home.

With those facts known at that time how can you tell me imminent death, danger, bodily injury?

While outside the man didn't respond to question and was walking towards him.  No running, not walking aggressively etc.

With those facts know at that time how can you tell me imminent death, danger, bodily injury?

he attemped to enter the house and did so more than once, so at the very least you can be honest and say that he was trying to get inside.

him leaving the house while it looks bad is not ILLEGAL and if he is charged the jury will be instructed that it should not play into their judgement.

Honestly Ozmo if you were in his situation and you left the house for whatever reason would you not feel like you were in danger?

be honest and answer the question, I think most people in that situation would feel they were in danger.

[240 is Back]

It's so funny...

Conservatives are supposed to be tough on crime.
Libs are supposed to be soft on crime.

This dude killed someone.  Why?  Cause he, a strong armed 33 year old was "scared for his safety" from an old man with 2 dogs barking in his yards.

LOL... it's just too funny... An old man is dead cause this dipshit got spooked and fired into the darkness... an old man didn't obey his commands so he killed him.  Fuck this guy, seriously, fuck him.   He doesn't need a gun, he's reckless. If he's that easy to be spooked, maybe he's not a safe bet for having a gun.

Where did the other 3 bullets land?  

[240 is Back]

he attemped to enter the house and did so more than once, so at the very least you can be honest and say that he was trying to get inside.

him leaving the house while it looks bad is not ILLEGAL and if he is charged the jury will be instructed that it should not play into their judgement.

Honestly Ozmo if you were in his situation and you left the house for whatever reason would you not feel like you were in danger?

be honest and answer the question, I think most people in that situation would feel they were in danger.

heres the thing - NONE OF THESE THINGS AFFECT THE SHOOTING ITSELF.

Just as zimmerman chasing trayvon had NO BEARING on him shooting him in self defense.

He jiggled handle, gave up and walked away.  THIS ENDS the home invasion part of things.  You can't allow him to flee 20 feet and shoot him for it.  Jeez, it's baffling to me.  The OLD SHIT doesn't matter here.  Someone came to their door last week, someone threatened her - THIS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SHOOTING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The shooting had to do with ONE THING - his disobedience and continued walking in the yard.  That's it.  You forfeit the "I was scared he was invading my home" the minute you leave your home.  Being scared because of two previous incidents this old man had nothing to do with - has ZERO BEARING on the shooting.

Being mad and scared isn't a reason to kill someone.  Look at this way... A guy has been attempted carjacked twice in the last week, drove away each time.  I try his door handle at the grocery store, as we have the same car.  Doesn't work.  So I walk away.  He EXITS HIS CAR, walks 20 feet to me, orders me to the ground.  I don't listen, so he shoots me.

Sorry, any jury would LAUGH off a 'he was trying to carjack me' claim.  Just as they should laugh off a home invasion charge once a dude is leaving and 10_ feet away in the yard.

[blacken700]

what,s funny is all the gun nuts come and back this idiot,then it's actions from idiots like him that get gun laws changed . then the all cry 

[Archer77]

what,s funny is all the gun nuts come and back this idiot,then it's actions from idiots like him that get gun laws changed . then the all cry 

What's your definition of a gun nut?

[OzmO]

he attemped to enter the house and did so more than once, so at the very least you can be honest and say that he was trying to get inside.

him leaving the house while it looks bad is not ILLEGAL and if he is charged the jury will be instructed that it should not play into their judgement.

Honestly Ozmo if you were in his situation and you left the house for whatever reason would you not feel like you were in danger?

be honest and answer the question, I think most people in that situation would feel they were in danger.

Oh fucking quit it with the honestly bull shit.

Can we agree that there is a difference between tying get in a house and forced entry?  Cann we agree that knocking on a door and jiggling a handle isn't agains the law?

Its not about whether it was legal or illegal to leave his house.  It's that in leaving he is showing that he felt he wasn't in imminent danger death or bodily injury otherwise why would he leave his wife when no one is forcing entry and he has a gun?

The issue With  the danger is the degree of danger. So to answer your question of course I would think there is some danger.  Anyone would.  But because there isn't forced entry, I have a gun and the Police are on their way, I have the means to defend and are the safest staying inside, i dont see myself in imminent death, or danger.   To go outside wuld mean I thnk there isn't as much danger. Because thei would be leaving my family inside alone.


Now in all 3 steps...as I have asked you....

When was he as beach's linked article says, in IMMINENT danger, death or bodily injury???

[tonymctones]

heres the thing - NONE OF THESE THINGS AFFECT THE SHOOTING ITSELF.

Just as zimmerman chasing trayvon had NO BEARING on him shooting him in self defense.

He jiggled handle, gave up and walked away.  THIS ENDS the home invasion part of things.  You can't allow him to flee 20 feet and shoot him for it.  Jeez, it's baffling to me.  The OLD SHIT doesn't matter here.  Someone came to their door last week, someone threatened her - THIS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SHOOTING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The shooting had to do with ONE THING - his disobedience and continued walking in the yard.  That's it.  You forfeit the "I was scared he was invading my home" the minute you leave your home.  Being scared because of two previous incidents this old man had nothing to do with - has ZERO BEARING on the shooting.

Being mad and scared isn't a reason to kill someone.  Look at this way... A guy has been attempted carjacked twice in the last week, drove away each time.  I try his door handle at the grocery store, as we have the same car.  Doesn't work.  So I walk away.  He EXITS HIS CAR, walks 20 feet to me, orders me to the ground.  I don't listen, so he shoots me.

Sorry, any jury would LAUGH off a 'he was trying to carjack me' claim.  Just as they should laugh off a home invasion charge once a dude is leaving and 10_ feet away in the yard.

and him leaving the house had nothing to do with the shooting.

this guys likely wont be charged if i had to guess

[tonymctones]

Oh fucking quit it with the honestly bull shit.

Can we agree that there is a difference between tying get in a house and forced entry?  Cann we agree that knocking on a door and jiggling a handle isn't agains the law?

Its not about whether it was legal or illegal to leave his house.  It's that in leaving he is showing that he felt he wasn't in imminent danger death or bodily injury otherwise why would he leave his wife when no one is forcing entry and he has a gun?

The issue With  the danger is the degree of danger. So to answer your question of course I would think there is some danger.  Anyone would.  But because there isn't forced entry, I have a gun and the Police are on their way, I have the means to defend and are the safest staying inside, i dont see myself in imminent death, or danger.   To go outside wuld mean I thnk there isn't as much danger. Because thei would be leaving my family inside alone.


Now in all 3 steps...as I have asked you....

When was he as beach's linked article says, in IMMINENT danger, death or bodily injury???

agreed that jiggling a door handle isnt illegal but it goes to HIS MINDSET!!!

you seem to have a problem with understanding that the fact he left the house does not have anything to do in terms of the law with the shooting....

you keep trying to bring that up but it has no bearing on the shooting itself. Yes he shouldnt have left the house, the old man shouldnt have tried to open his door. These things sit outside of the shooting.

and AGAIN HE DOESNT HAVE TO BE IN ACTUAL DANGER!!!'

what part of that do you not understand?

[240 is Back]

and him leaving the house had nothing to do with the shooting.

this guys likely wont be charged if i had to guess

Correct - He cannot claim anything about "dude trying to enter my house" as why he shot.  He cannot claim "last week, we felt threatened when..."

Actually, it makes him look MORE likely to shoot when not necessary, telling us how spooked he was already, before old man jiggled the door.  



I don't think he'll serve 6 years in jail.... BUT looking at the WORDING from the sheriff... "We're trying to gather more info and evidence, the decision is up to the DA"... My guess is that they'll charge him or they will work out an agreement.  Involuntary manslaughter or something.  They have to give him something, he shot an old man in his yard.  Re-read that.  He shot an old man in his yard.  The minute that's okay, the minute people everywhere start doing exactly that.  At least now, you KNOW, you can't shoot them outside, you have to do it inside.  This dude got spooked and 4-tapped a shadow lol.  Those other 3 bullets had to land somewhere too.

He' just too irresponsible.  More anger than fear.  He'll be charged, I'd guess, reading what the sheriff said.  

[240 is Back]

agreed that jiggling a door handle isnt illegal but it goes to HIS MINDSET!!!

Mindset DOESNT MATTER - it actually works against him.

Suddenly he has a MOTIVE to shoot someone, not a justification.  See the difference? 

Jiggling created anger, not fear.
Fear keeps him inside, anger brings him outside.

[tonymctones]

Mindset DOESNT MATTER - it actually works against him.

Suddenly he has a MOTIVE to shoot someone, not a justification.  See the difference? 

Jiggling created anger, not fear.
Fear keeps him inside, anger brings him outside.

mindset is all the matters....was his mindset reasonable is the legal question

[OzmO]

agreed that jiggling a door handle isnt illegal but it goes to HIS MINDSET!!!

you seem to have a problem with understanding that the fact he left the house does not have anything to do in terms of the law with the shooting....

you keep trying to bring that up but it has no bearing on the shooting itself. Yes he shouldnt have left the house, the old man shouldnt have tried to open his door. These things sit outside of the shooting.

and AGAIN HE DOESNT HAVE TO BE IN ACTUAL DANGER!!!'

what part of that do you not understand?

Do you consider yourself a reasonable man Tony?

Now in all 3 steps...as I have asked you....

When was he as beach's linked article says, in IMMINENT danger, death or bodily injury???

[tonymctones]

Do you consider yourself a reasonable man Tony?

the article both beach and myself does not state that someone HAS TO BE in imminent danger or death.

It says that a person has to reasonably BELIEVE they are in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm.

you do understand the difference between actually being in danger and BELIEVING you are in danger correct?

I only ask b/c seem to skip right over the BELIEVE part of the law standard of law.

[Dos Equis]

{shrug} Good question. Obviously it wasn't a verbal one. Perhaps you should ask the reporter who wrote the story.

You haven't exactly been the most credible source in this thread.  You claimed the police talked to the man earlier in the day, which is false. 

You also claimed Hendrix had already been charged, which is also false. 

[OzmO]

the article both beach and myself does not state that someone HAS TO BE in imminent danger or death.

It says that a person has to reasonably BELIEVE they are in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm.

you do understand the difference between actually being in danger and BELIEVING you are in danger correct?

I only ask b/c seem to skip right over the BELIEVE part of the law standard of law.

Do you consider yourself a reasonable man Tony?

Now in all 3 steps...as I have asked you....

When was he as beach's linked article says, in IMMINENT danger, death or bodily injury?

[Dos Equis]

Nobody threatened his wife, ...he is not even married. She was his fiancé
Someone came to the door, and demanded to speak with someone she didn't know, then left.

Maybe he had the wrong house? The problem with reality / perspective is that it rarely show you the way things are, it only shows you the way YOU are. And right now Americans are living in a state of FEAR.

FEAR = False Evidence Appearing Real!!!

I know it was his fiancé, which is what I've said.  I was talking about my own situation. 

Egads.  Americans are panicked.  Maybe they don't know America has already fallen?   

[Dos Equis]

I meant to circle back to 240's idiocy but got side tracked

And Jag is like the female version of 240:  both just flat out making stuff up. 

[tonymctones]

Do you consider yourself a reasonable man Tony?

Now in all 3 steps...as I have asked you....

When was he as beach's linked article says, in IMMINENT danger, death or bodily injury?

if we apply the knowledge gained after the fact he was never in imminent danger of death or bodily injury.

NOT THAT IT MATTERS B/C THATS NOT THE STANDARD OF LAW, BUT IF YOU WANT TO TRY AND SAY IT IS GO AHEAD.

To many articles and posts including numerous ones in this thread that specifically say otherwise but if you want to believe it go ahead bro.

[240 is Back]

mindset is all the matters....was his mindset reasonable is the legal question

anyone in fear of their life (due to these previous factors and the handle jiggling) wouldn't have opened the door.

If you legitimately believe you're about to die by opening that door, you don't open it.   

The fear of death or grave bodily injury would have to begin the moment he stepped outside.  And I don't see how he felt that without even seeing who was out there.