Stand Your Ground Law's Latest Victim

[Jack T. Cross]

If he has PTSD does his behavior makes sense?

I remember when you mentioned that before, and it's a great question.

And what unusual treatment did he get from the sheriff?

I don't know that he did. They had a friendly relationship (were at the very least, church-mates), which causes me to become concerned when the most notable quote in this story is a favorable one delivered by the Sheriff. If he (the Sheriff) advised Hendrix in any way that was unusual, versus how he would treat a stranger in this situation, I would be very unhappy with that.

[240 is Back]

33, you know the law, as well as others here... how long *can* the DA wait to file charges?

LOL... maybe they're just waiting until right before Christmas vacation... make a small a new impact as possible.  We see it every holiday... the news dump lol.  File charges, or announce they won't... or announce a plea deal has been reached... but maybe I'm giving them too much credit fo being shrewd.

[Dos Equis]

It seemed to affect it here:

I'm saying whether he was on title, on the lease, etc. is unimportant.  I still consider it "his" property.  His fiancé just moved into an apartment, they're about to get married, and he's sleeping there.  Probably has a bunch of stuff there.  Pretty clear it was "his" place too.  A distinction without a difference IMO. 

[Dos Equis]

I remember when you mentioned that before, and it's a great question.

I don't know that he did. They had a friendly relationship (were at the very least, church-mates), which causes me to become concerned when the most notable quote in this story is a favorable one delivered by the Sheriff. If he (the Sheriff) advised Hendrix in any way that was unusual, versus how he would treat a stranger in this situation, I would be very unhappy with that.

I think you're confused.  The Sheriff went to church with Westbrook, not Hendrix. 

[Jack T. Cross]

I think you're confused.  The Sheriff went to church with Westbrook, not Hendrix. 

Thank you, BB. I'll look into it further. Here's what I found on a quick search:

Wilson said the case was difficult since he knew Hendrix personally.

"He's a good man. I've known him. We attend church together. We go to the same church. Just a fine man. A fine family," Wilson said, WRCB reported.

"There's no doubt in our mind that Mr. Hendrix and his fiance felt threatened."

(please note that he is not referring to the person in a past tense)

From here:

http://rt.com/usa/georgia-elderly-alzheimers-shooting-504/

[OzmO]

I'm saying whether he was on title, on the lease, etc. is unimportant.  I still consider it "his" property.  His fiancé just moved into an apartment, they're about to get married, and he's sleeping there.  Probably has a bunch of stuff there.  Pretty clear it was "his" place too.  A distinction without a difference IMO. 

Lots of things you are assuming and whether or not they seem like logical conclusions they are assumptions. 

Facts as we know them:  Hendrix, the shooter, is her fiancee who doesn't live with her, who is not on the lease/rental agreement, does not own the property and lives at a separate location.  Hence, this is NOT his "Own Property"

[Dos Equis]

Thank you, BB. I'll look into it further. Here's what I found on a quick search:


(please note that he is not referring to the person in a past tense)

From here:

http://rt.com/usa/georgia-elderly-alzheimers-shooting-504/

Weird.  Maybe he went to church with both of them?

Sheriff Wilson told Chattanooga Times that he knew Mr Westbrook, who attended the same church as him.
‘Just a fine man, fine family,’ Sheriff Wilson said. ‘I really hate it for his wife and his children.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2517938/Neighbor-shot-Air-Force-veteran-advanced-Alzheimers-use-stand-ground-law-charged.html#ixzz2neqeoUYO

[Dos Equis]

Lots of things you are assuming and whether or not they seem like logical conclusions they are assumptions. 

Facts as we know them:  Hendrix, the shooter, is her fiancee who doesn't live with her, who is not on the lease/rental agreement, does not own the property and lives at a separate location.  Hence, this is NOT his "Own Property"

Not everything you stated are facts.  Have you seen the lease or rental agreement posted online?  How often did he sleep there in the two weeks she lived there?  Every night?  One night?   

Yes, I'm making logical conclusions, and yes they are assumptions. 

[OzmO]

At the end of an article posted on Dec. 8th regarding this incident

http://www.news-sentinel.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20131208/NEWS/131209695/1006


Under Georgia law, people are not required to try retreating from a potential conflict before opening fire to defend themselves from serious imminent harm, said Russell Gabriel, director of the Criminal Defense Clinic at the University of Georgia. State law allows people to use lethal force to stop someone from forcibly entering a home if those inside reasonably fear they are going to be attacked. Deadly force can even be used to stop someone from trying to forcibly enter a home to commit a felony.


Keyword:  "Forcibly"

As per the law as it reads here, should this guy be charged?

[OzmO]

Not everything you stated are facts.  Have you seen the lease or rental agreement posted online?  How often did he sleep there in the two weeks she lived there?  Every night?  One night?  

Yes, I'm making logical conclusions, and yes they are assumptions.  

Is he on it or not?

How often he sleeps there doesn't make it " his own property"  

But his place of residence does which is usually verified by his mailing address.

You said it would be a big difference if it wasn't his own property.   Its NOT his property in every sense of the word.

[Dos Equis]

At the end of an article posted on Dec. 8th regarding this incident

http://www.news-sentinel.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20131208/NEWS/131209695/1006


Under Georgia law, people are not required to try retreating from a potential conflict before opening fire to defend themselves from serious imminent harm, said Russell Gabriel, director of the Criminal Defense Clinic at the University of Georgia. State law allows people to use lethal force to stop someone from forcibly entering a home if those inside reasonably fear they are going to be attacked. Deadly force can even be used to stop someone from trying to forcibly enter a home to commit a felony.


Keyword:  "Forcibly"

As per the law as it reads here, should this guy be charged?

He wasn't necessarily trying to stop someone from entering the home, so not sure this applies. 

[OzmO]

He wasn't necessarily trying to stop someone from entering the home, so not sure this applies. 

So what was he, in your mind, trying to do now?

Stop a man from walking towards him who didn't have a weapon, and THAT justifies deadly force? 

There was no forced entry.  Hendrix left his GF's home (NOT his property) and confronted a man who didn't answer him who was walking towards him and SHOT him dead.


I have been saying this over and over again:

NO Forced entry

NO Weapon

NO reasonable man would feel he was in danger of imminent death or injury.

[Dos Equis]

Is he on it or not?

How often he sleeps there doesn't make it " his own property"  

But his place of residence does which is usually verified by his mailing address.

You said it would be a big difference if it wasn't his own property.   Its NOT his property in every sense of the word.

I have no idea.  Neither do you.  That was the point.  You're making an assumption.  

I disagree about it not being his property.  The person's name on the lease doesn't dictate whether or not it's his residence.  A person can only have one domicile (permanent place they call home), but more than one residence.  For example, a college student living in another state would have one domicile (his or her parent's home), but two residences (parent's home and dorm, apartment, or house).  

I don't see this situation as any different, especially if he spent multiple nights there in the two weeks his fiancé lived there.  Doesn't change my view at all about it being "his" property.  I would be shocked if that becomes an issue with police or the DA.  

[Dos Equis]

So what was he, in your mind, trying to do now?

Stop a man from walking towards him who didn't have a weapon, and THAT justifies deadly force? 

There was no forced entry.  Hendrix left his GF's home (NOT his property) and confronted a man who didn't answer him who was walking towards him and SHOT him dead.


I have been saying this over and over again:

NO Forced entry

NO Weapon

NO reasonable man would feel he was in danger of imminent death or injury.

He was confronting a threat, which included:

1.  A prior threat to his fiancé by some unknown man.
2.  A short period of time later, an unknown man tries to open his front door, twice, at 4 a.m.
3.  The police didn't immediately arrive.
4.  He left the house after the guy tried to open the front door the second time.
5.  The stranger walked to toward him, on his own property, and refused to respond to commands. 

Sounds reasonable to me that he would be afraid of imminent injury or death under those circumstances.  I think a reasonable person would be afraid.   

We should just cut-and-paste, because we're both just repeating ourselves.  lol   

[OzmO]

I have no idea.  Neither do you.  That was the point.  You're making an assumption.  

I disagree about it not being his property.  The person's name on the lease doesn't dictate whether or not it's his residence.  A person can only have one domicile (permanent place they call home), but more than one residence.  For example, a college student living in another state would have one domicile (his or her parent's home), but two residences (parent's home and dorm, apartment, or house).  

I don't see this situation as any different, especially if he spent multiple nights there in the two weeks his fiancé lived there.  Doesn't change my view at all about it being "his" property.  I would be shocked if that becomes an issue with police or the DA.  

Your view doesn't matter when it comes to establishing whether it was his property or not.  You said if it wasn't his own property it would make a huge difference.  Its not his own property in every sense of the word, but most importantly in the sense that a court would look at it.  If he is not on the lease, which he probably isn't, its NOT his place.  It's his GF's.

He was confronting a threat, which included:

1.  A prior threat to his fiancé by some unknown man.
2.  A short period of time later, an unknown man tries to open his front door, twice, at 4 a.m.
3.  The police didn't immediately arrive.
4.  He left the house after the guy tried to open the front door the second time.
5.  The stranger walked to toward him, on his own property, and refused to respond to commands.  

Sounds reasonable to me that he would be afraid of imminent injury or death under those circumstances.  I think a reasonable person would be afraid.  

1.  Connecting the unknown man to the known man is based totally an assumption NOT fact.
2.  But does NOT forcibly try to open it.
3.  They were on their way and there wasn't act of forced entry in process or prior
4.  There was no forced entry or attempted forced entry.  He had no reason to fear for his life or bodily injury.  No reasonable man would.  Scared yes, but not to that degree
5.  The stranger had to visible weapon, no aggressive approach.

Then Hendrix irresponsibly shot him.  

We should just cut-and-paste, because we're both just repeating ourselves.  lol   

 

[Dos Equis]

Your view doesn't matter when it comes to establishing whether it was his property or not.  You said if it wasn't his own property it would make a huge difference.  Its not his own property in every sense of the word, but most importantly in the sense that a court would look at it.  If he is not on the lease, which he probably isn't, its NOT his place.  It's his GF's.

1.  Connecting the unknown man to the known man is based totally an assumption NOT fact.
2.  But does NOT forcibly try to open it.
3.  They were on their way and there wasn't act of forced entry in process or prior
4.  There was no forced entry or attempted forced entry.  He had no reason to fear for his life or bodily injury.  No reasonable man would.  Scared yes, but not to that degree
5.  The stranger had to visible weapon, no aggressive approach.

Then Hendrix irresponsibly shot him.  

 

lol.  They need to go ahead make a decision in Georgia already.  Don't they realize how much debate they creating all over the country?   

[OzmO]

lol.  They need to go ahead make a decision in Georgia already.  Don't they realize how much debate they creating all over the country?   

lol.  Yeah, Tony seems to think the longer they take the more its going to be a charge and i think the opposite. 

[Dos Equis]

lol.  Yeah, Tony seems to think the longer they take the more its going to be a charge and i think the opposite. 

I don't think there is any science to that kind of stuff at all.  You always hearing pundits saying that kind of stuff.  Nobody really knows. Just look at the kid from Florida State.  How long did they take to say they weren't charging him?  Seems like it took forever. 

[Jack T. Cross]

Weird.  Maybe he went to church with both of them?

Sheriff Wilson told Chattanooga Times that he knew Mr Westbrook, who attended the same church as him.
‘Just a fine man, fine family,’ Sheriff Wilson said. ‘I really hate it for his wife and his children.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2517938/Neighbor-shot-Air-Force-veteran-advanced-Alzheimers-use-stand-ground-law-charged.html#ixzz2neqeoUYO

Yes, I'd say so. He referred to one in the present tense, and the other as having a wife.

So that's that.

[Jack T. Cross]

You've done a good job on this, Oz. You're right on the edge with it, for sure.

[tonymctones]

someone just email the fucking DA and let that prick know where all sitting here waiting...

[240 is Back]

NO reasonable man would feel he was in danger of imminent death or injury.

He shot the old man because he was mad.

Mad the police were taking too long, mad this jerk in the yard with barking dogs had tried the door.  He was mad that he looked and felt helpless against whoever was out there, when he was so empowered when in the service.  He was mad someone had pranked her (twice?) over the past week and thought this was the same guy.

Most of all, he was mad this silhouette didn't immediately lie down on the ground and surrender. 

And yes, they only rushed the jameis winston charge so he could win the Heisman without the charge hanging over his head.  They take months all the time to decide.  They're looking at his background, maybe even his military service, looking for incidents like this.  Very often, they too quickly declare something an accident then find out a dude had three previous wives also perish in bathtub accidents lol.

[Jack T. Cross]

Maybe, 240.

But OzmO's idea of PTSD is really persistent on the mind. It would explain why an otherwise good person may flip out and do things that he should have known were wrong in every respect. He placed himself at high risk for being shot (after all, isn't this what we'd accept as his reason for doing as he ultimately did: killing Westbrook?).

This is not reasonable behavior.

Maybe someone will insist that he seek treatment for potential PTSD.

[240 is Back]

Maybe, 240.

But OzmO's idea of PTSD is really persistent on the mind. It would explain why an otherwise good person may flip out and do things that he should have known were wrong in every respect. He placed himself at high risk for being shot (after all, isn't this what we'd accept as his reason for doing as he ultimately did: killing Westbrook?).

This is not reasonable behavior.

Maybe someone will insist that he seek treatment for potential PTSD.

If he didn't wait ten minutes, I'd agree.

But he had the sense to sit inside safely, waiting for 600 seconds.

Then he snapped, had enough, and transformed into a one-man yard sweeping machine.  Maybe PTSD, I dunno how it works.  But he did the right thing for 10 minutes. 

[Jack T. Cross]

So what nuts-and-bolts reason would be viewed as valid for doing what he did? Fear of being shot, obviously, or perhaps being stabbed...reasons that may drive him to use deadly force.