Stand Your Ground Law's Latest Victim

[temple_of_dis]

I think Treyvon reminded america that good manners are priceless.  If some guy hassles you simply say ok follow me lets goto my dads house and you can ask him whatever you want.

[Jack T. Cross]

Would love to have Hendrix explain his actions.

[Jack T. Cross]

I think Treyvon reminded america that good manners are priceless.  If some guy hassles you simply say ok follow me lets goto my dads house and you can ask him whatever you want.

Myself, I'm sorry Martin wasn't legally armed that night.

[240 is Back]

I think Treyvon reminded america that good manners are priceless.  If some guy hassles you simply say ok follow me lets goto my dads house and you can ask him whatever you want.

but the guy hassling him wasn't showing good manners.   He was carrying a gun, thus violating neighborhood watch protocol.  He didn't identify himself, he just started giving chase. 

Trayvon would have been 100% legal to pull gun and shoot zimmerman.  Boom.  "I feared for my life, I ran two blocks to escape this dude 50 pounds heavier with a gun.  I fired in self defense, get me a lawyer".

Trayvon wouldn't have been charged, once they heard the 911 call. 

[OzmO]

Hahaha..even though Beach said this:
 

..he refuses to allow it to be applied to Hendrix.

And now his "headache" won't let him go any further on this topic.

 

I wonder what the law says on it if anything or if ownership property even makes a difference as far as the law goes.

[Dos Equis]

 

[OzmO]

?

[Dos Equis]

?

Beating a dead horse.  Sorta takes the funny out when I gotta explain it . . . .

[OzmO]

Beating a dead horse.  Sorta takes the funny out when I gotta explain it . . . .

How is it beating a dead horse?

Your opinion about whether or not it was Hendrix's property and whether or not it matters in terms of his right to shot a person on it really doesn't matter   

What's matters is if its a factor in the law.  In court they will use the "law" to determine if a crime has been committed.  It won't matter if you still feel it was his property even though he has no legal claim to it and was in fact a guest.  Don't you agree?

[Dos Equis]

How is it beating a dead horse?

Your opinion about whether or not it was Hendrix's property and whether or not it matters in terms of his right to shot a person on it really doesn't matter   

What's matters is if its a factor in the law.  In court they will use the "law" to determine if a crime has been committed.  It won't matter if you still feel it was his property even though he has no legal claim to it and was in fact a guest.  Don't you agree?

Because there really isn't anything new being discussed. 

I don't agree that he was a guest for the all reasons I've already stated.  I don't think anyone other than you and Jag are calling him guest.  I haven't heard anyone involved with the case make this an issue.  But I've said all that already.  It really is beating a dead horse. 

[OzmO]

Because there really isn't anything new being discussed. 

I don't agree that he was a guest for the all reasons I've already stated.  I don't think anyone other than you and Jag are calling him guest.  I haven't heard anyone involved with the case make this an issue.  But I've said all that already.  It really is beating a dead horse. 

We haven't discussed if ownership of the property gives him legal justification to do what he did.   Point being, the law determines ownership, and or as you might be saying implied ownership and how that weighs into the case and law. 

.....which is a horse we have yet to beat to death. 

[Dos Equis]

We haven't discussed if ownership of the property gives him legal justification to do what he did.   Point being, the law determines ownership, and or as you might be saying implied ownership and how that weighs into the case and law. 

.....which is a horse we have yet to beat to death. 

lol   

I never claimed being owner of the property gave him legal justification to use deadly force.  Being owner and/or resident of the property is part of the analysis.  At least for me.

I do think if he was just visiting a friend's house that his actions would have to be viewed differently.  But that's simply not the case here. 

[OzmO]

lol   

I never claimed being owner of the property gave him legal justification to use deadly force.  Being owner and/or resident of the property is part of the analysis.  At least for me.

I do think if he was just visiting a friend's house that his actions would have to be viewed differently.  But that's simply not the case here. 

The point is, it doesn't matter what you "think" about it.  What matters regarding him being charged is whether or not it matters to the law as does whether or not him being an owner of the property does in relation to the case.   

At the moment its pretty unclear. 

[Dos Equis]

The point is, it doesn't matter what you "think" about it.  What matters regarding him being charged is whether or not it matters to the law as does whether or not him being an owner of the property does in relation to the case.   

At the moment its pretty unclear. 

Whether he was an owner has not been mentioned by law enforcement or the prosecutor as being an issue.  I'm the one who first mentioned it as an issue in this thread and then when someone claimed he wasn't on the lease, you started highlighting my statements about ownership (not statements from anyone in law enforcement).  It's part of my analysis.  Should be part of theirs too, but as of now it's a just something being discussed on the board. 

Wait, where did the information first come from that he's not on the lease?   

[OzmO]

Whether he was an owner has not been mentioned by law enforcement or the prosecutor as being an issue.  I'm the one who first mentioned it as an issue in this thread and then when someone claimed he wasn't on the lease, you started highlighting my statements about ownership (not statements from anyone in law enforcement).  It's part of my analysis.  Should be part of theirs too, but as of now it's a just something being discussed on the board. 

Wait, where did the information first come from that he's not on the lease?   

i donno lol

[Dos Equis]

i donno lol

Uh oh.  Did it come from Jag?   

[OzmO]

Uh oh.  Did it come from Jag?   

yikes    not sure

[Dos Equis]

yikes    not sure

I'll look later.  Have to check out for a while. 

[240 is Back]

Whether he was an owner has not been mentioned by law enforcement or the prosecutor as being an issue.

law enforcement is frequently misleading, creative, or "omittal" when discussing things publicly.

They don't always reveal all the info they have during very early press conferences.  And they work not to jeapordize the case or taint jury pool or clam up shooters or other things like that.

[Agnostic007]

I love it man - We disagree on damn near everything lol...  But on this, we agree.

Personally, I would love to see a reckless cowboy with an itchy trigger finger (like zimmerman or this dude) that provokes a shooting, get served up 20 years in prison.  This guy was just looking for a reason to shoot someone.  I can't wait ot hear the 911 calls... I bet he buries himself with them... "Yall better send the cops or I'm gonna DEAL WITH this guy  myself..."  LOL...  I can just imagine.

Had one in Austin recently...

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news/local/20-year-prison-term-for-man-who-shot-texas-state-s/nbzFh/

[Jack T. Cross]

I wonder what the law says on it if anything or if ownership property even makes a difference as far as the law goes.

It's absolutely valid for that to cross your mind, no doubt about it.

But yeah, someone would have to try and use it against him in the first place, and they'd have to explain themselves in such a way that might show how his actions should have been different due to that (which is why his squirrelly behavior is EXTREMELY important to look at, and why it becomes so distracting when someone tries to defend him). If he was a stranger to the scene (like some dude from a bar or something), that might be a first step in questioning the property angle.

Myself, I believe Hendrix has PTSD or something very similar. He needs to find a solution for that.

[Dos Equis]

yikes    not sure

I looked at a number of articles.  Some say she rented.  Some say he rented.  Some say the both rented.  Two examples:

"An incident in mid-November may have set the stage for the fatal error. Shortly after Hendrix's fiancee moved into her new rental home, a man appeared at the door just before midnight on Nov. 19."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/07/suffering-from-alzheimers-ga-man-fatally-shot/3904791/

"Westbrook then rang the doorbell and turned the doorknob of a home at 188 Cottage Crest Court at 3:54 a.m., awakening Joe Hendrix, 34, of Ooltewah, and his fiancee. They had rented the home in the new subdivision about two weeks ago, next-door neighbor Brandi Wallace said."

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2013/nov/28/wandering-man-with-alzheimers-shot-killed/

Didn't read anywhere where law enforcement thought this was is an issue. 

[Dos Equis]

Looks like the wife had a lot of experience dealing with Alzheimer's patients and had installed an alarm:

A retired nurse who once cared for dementia patients in a nursing home, Westbrook's wife was perhaps better equipped than most to care for a spouse with Alzheimer's. The progressive disease results in memory loss, impairs judgment and can leave its victims disoriented.

She installed door alarms to alert her if her husband tried wandering away. She was already making plans to get more advanced care at home as the disease progressed.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/12/07/suffering-from-alzheimers-ga-man-fatally-shot/3904791/

[Dos Equis]

Also found this interview of the sheriff.  He says no doubt in his mind that both of them were afraid. 

[OzmO]

Also found this interview of the sheriff.  He says no doubt in his mind that both of them were afraid. 

They should have been afraid.