Stand Your Ground Law's Latest Victim

[tonymctones]

This is not correct?   Does a reasonable man who feels he and his wife is in imminent danger leave her a alone?  Does he feel in imminent danger when there is no forced entry and the police are otheir way and he has a gun?

Point is a reasonalble man wouldnt feel he is in imminent danger.  Hendrix didn't feel he was in imminent danger of death or injury.  He left his home and irresponsibly murdered someone. 

and the point is he had no personal liability or duty of care when opening the door, which is why it will not be a part of what is weighed....

the only time he did was when he was confronted with the man

[Jack T. Cross]

I wouldn't have allowed myself into a situation like that, guaranteed. Most of us probably wouldn't have.

After all, was he placing himself in danger of being shot? If he put himself in front of a potentially hostile silhouette (one presumably with concealed/unseen hands), then that's exactly what he did.

Why would he do that? Why did he process it so incorrectly?

In the end, however, it's his property. Westbrook was the one who was misplaced and unable to explain himself, and he used his presence in a way that could be perceived as threatening.

As the story stands so far, that's the way it is.

[tonymctones]

I'm not sure how helpful that is.  We all have the benefit of hindsight.  Completely different analysis when you're looking at a situation after the fact.  That's why I say I don't know what I would have done.  Nobody really knows because there are so many variables.  

Maybe he should have taken joe bidens advice and just shot through the door?

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/02/28/biden-advises-shooting-shotgun-through-door

"[if] you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door."

libtard common sense, it aint the common

[Dos Equis]

Maybe he should have taken joe bidens advice and just shot through the door?

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/02/28/biden-advises-shooting-shotgun-through-door

"[if] you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door."

libtard common sense, it aint the common

Good grief.  And to think he's a heartbeat from the presidency.   

[OzmO]

and the point is he had no personal liability or duty of care when opening the door, which is why it will not be a part of what is weighed....

the only time he did was when he was confronted with the man

The man walking towards him with no visible weapon who didn't respond?

That's the standard for reasonable men to fired their weapon?

So now we include......

[OzmO]

Maybe he should have taken joe bidens advice and just shot through the door?

http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/02/28/biden-advises-shooting-shotgun-through-door

"[if] you want to keep someone away from your house, just fire the shotgun through the door."

libtard common sense, it aint the common

Omg.   

[tonymctones]

The man walking towards him wi no visible weapon who didn't respond?

That's the standard for reasonable men to fired their weapon?

So now we include......

at 4am after the man had tried to get into his house, yes

[OzmO]

at 4am after the man had tried to get into his house, yes

You mean the man who didn't force entry? The man who jiggled the knob?  The man that wasn't in the act of forcing entry?   

And that's why leaving the house is an issue, if the man was a perceived threat of imminent danger then a reasonable man doesn't leave his wife alone.    If the man is not then he went outside not feeling he was in imminent danger of deathnand injury and shot a man with no visagle weapon walking towards him.


Remember, an attempted forced entry changes everything.

[tonymctones]

You mean the man who didn't force entry? The man who jiggled the knob?  The man that wasn't in the act of forcing entry?   

And that's why leaving the house is an issue, if the man was a perceived threat of imminent danger then a reasonable man doesn't leave his wife alone.    If the man is not then he went outside not feeling he was in imminent danger of deathnand injury and shot a man with no visagle weapon walking towards him.


Remember, an attempted forced entry changes everything.

again facts found after the fact, there was no way to know that he was not trying to force entry or find another way to enter the house.

Again its obvious you cannot seperate the idea that him going outside is not part of what will be weighed.

Like I said we will all find out sooner or later anyhow.

[OzmO]

again facts found after the fact, there was no way to know that he was not trying to force entry or find another way to enter the house.

Again its obvious you cannot seperate the idea that him going outside is not part of what will be weighed.

Like I said we will all find out sooner or later anyhow.

You are now adding your own facts.

 there is nothing saying he was trying to force entry.  So you stay with what you know is going on.  Those are the facts.  A man that knocks on the door and jiggles the handle.

It will be, becuase going outside is a statement of his frame of mind. 

[tonymctones]

You are now adding your own facts.

 there is nothing saying he was trying to force entry.  So you stay with what you know is going on.  Those are the facts.  A man that knocks on the door and jiggles the handle.

It will be, becuase going outside is a statement of his frame of mind. 

it certainly is a statement of his frame of mind, just not when it actually matters in terms of the law...

THATS THE POINT!!!!

[OzmO]

it certainly is a statement of his frame of mind, just not when it actually matters in terms of the law...

THATS THE POINT!!!!

So it only matters justifying the use of deadly force but not the missuse?   

[tonymctones]

So it only matters justifying the use of deadly force but not the missuse?   

I know it sounds shitty but yea...as he didnt have any burden of duty/liability (he didnt break the law) this doesnt get factored in.

[240 is Back]

Yes if leaving her meant confronting and disabling the threat. 

So that's what Hendrix was doing?  "Disabling" a threat?  Did he even know what he was shooting?

He was issuing a death sentence to an unknown person in his side yard, right?

[240 is Back]

The man walking towards him with no visible weapon who didn't respond?

That's the standard for reasonable men to fired their weapon?

So now we include......

Hendrix was just using the Bush doctrine to pre-emptively kill a silhouette that might one day jiggle the back door.

Heyyyyy Joe, where you going with that gun in your hand...

[Jack T. Cross]

I will say, when thinking of the potential shooting threat he faced by situating himself like that, it would be interesting to know what precise consequential danger he perceived at the magic time, and how it compares to his perception at the time he chose to place himself outside.

[240 is Back]

I will say, when thinking of the potential shooting threat he faced by situating himself like that, it would be interesting to know what precise consequential danger he perceived at the magic time, and how it compares to his perception at the time he chose to place himself outside.

I bet it comes down to "He was on my property, I can shoot him" kinda thing.    The fact the word "trespass" was used...

[240 is Back]

nothing in the news for a week.   Are they gonna charge him? 

[24KT]

agreed but the law isnt going to look at the entire situation from the moment he heard the dogs barking and someone trying to open his door at 4am to the shooting and ask if he acted reasonably throughout the entire ordeal.

What they are going to ask is once he was in the situation of being face to face with him did he act reasonably?
you see there you go again, you think that simply b/c you and others wouldnt have done this it shows he didnt act reasonably...

but this will not be at part of what the standard of law measures....

and the point is he had no personal liability or duty of care when opening the door, which is why it will not be a part of what is weighed....

the only time he did was when he was confronted with the man

Two things here:

1) He was NEVER face to face with Westbrook.

2) He was NEVER confronted by Westbrook.

If this goes to trial, his only defence would be PTSD, or a temporary insanity defence putting him back on patrol of the mean streets of Baghdad, ...and that's why he pulled the trigger. Good Luck with that tho, because his actions both immediately before and after the shooting indicate he knew exactly where he was, and what he thought he was doing.

[24KT]

I wouldn't have allowed myself into a situation like that, guaranteed. Most of us probably wouldn't have.

After all, was he placing himself in danger of being shot? If he put himself in front of a potentially hostile silhouette (one presumably with concealed/unseen hands), then that's exactly what he did.

Why would he do that? Why did he process it so incorrectly?

In the end, however, it's his property. Westbrook was the one who was misplaced and unable to explain himself, and he used his presence in a way that could be perceived as threatening.

As the story stands so far, that's the way it is.

That's the thing... He wasn't on his own property. The property belonged to his girlfriend. He maintained his own apartment elsewhere. He was merely a guest at the time.

Please don't blame the victim. Westbrook did not choose to shoot himself. Hendrix made the decision to recklessly discharge the contents of his weapon into a shadow with full knowledge the police were already enroute

Does anyone think he would have gone outside to confront Westbrook if he didn't have the gun?

The purpose of a firearm is to protect / defend yourself, ...it's not suppose to be a dose of metal courage.

[240 is Back]

wow, Hendrix didn't even live there?  Ah, I bet that can't help his cause.  "I was acting on behalf of someone to defend their property, so I fired into a silhouette in the side yard".   

I can't fathom him not being charged, but it is Georgia... If there were 5 states where I think he woudln't be charged, GA would be one of them.

[tonymctones]

Two things here:

1) He was NEVER face to face with Westbrook.

2) He was NEVER confronted by Westbrook.

If this goes to trial, his only defence would be PTSD, or a temporary insanity defence putting him back on patrol of the mean streets of Baghdad, ...and that's why he pulled the trigger. Good Luck with that tho, because his actions both immediately before and after the shooting indicate he knew exactly where he was, and what he thought he was doing.

1) you dont have to be within spittle range to be confronted
2) there was a confrontation between the two men, you can call it an encounter if it fits within that closed mind of yours if you want.

yes lets take the word of a foreigner who doesnt even understand the law in her own country....piss off convict

[tonymctones]

The purpose of a firearm is to protect / defend yourself, ...it's not suppose to be a dose of metal courage.

I really need to stop responding to your idiocy b/c its just a fucking waste of time but I cant let this one stand

where did you get this stupidity from?

[tonymctones]

That's the thing... He wasn't on his own property. The property belonged to his girlfriend. He maintained his own apartment elsewhere. He was merely a guest at the time.

please post your citation for this, your credibility is almost as low as 240's is these day....

[Jack T. Cross]

That's the thing... He wasn't on his own property. The property belonged to his girlfriend. He maintained his own apartment elsewhere. He was merely a guest at the time.

Please don't blame the victim. Westbrook did not choose to shoot himself. Hendrix made the decision to recklessly discharge the contents of his weapon into a shadow with full knowledge the police were already enroute

Does anyone think he would have gone outside to confront Westbrook if he didn't have the gun?

The purpose of a firearm is to protect / defend yourself, ...it's not suppose to be a dose of metal courage.

I certainly wouldn't blame the person who was shot, 24KT. He was ill and unable to properly control himself.

He was also misplaced on that property, however, and Hendrix was not. I can't imagine anyone trying to differentiate anything further than that in this case, especially with Hendrix and the woman being partners.