Stand Your Ground Law's Latest Victim

[OzmO]

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. 

Then that nullifies this statement:

Also, it would be a much different situation if he wasn't on his own property

[Dos Equis]

Then that nullifies this statement:

No it doesn't.

[OzmO]

No it doesn't.

If the law isn't concerned then it doesn't.  Also with this statement too:

If the threat is at night, and you cannot tell what the person has, but they're on you're property, then it doesn't matter whether you think they have a gun, knife, bat, etc. or just their fists.

[OzmO]

Remember your opinion doesn't mean crap to what the law says.

And if they are aren't talking about it, it does nullify your point, what ever it was, for the moment.

Now if they do, then maybe so.   If in fact it was his property.

[Dos Equis]

If the law isn't concerned then it doesn't.  Also with this statement too:

I gave you two statements, one which said she rented, one which say they both rented.  How do you conclude that nullifies my point? 

[Dos Equis]

Remember your opinion doesn't mean crap to what the law says.

And if they are aren't talking about it, it does nullify your point, what ever it was.

Now if they do, then maybe so.   If in fact it was his property.

You don't have remind me that my opinion doesn't mean crap.  I'm well aware of that.  Nobody cares what any of us say on this board.  But that doesn't stop us from waxing eloquent.   

If they aren't talking about a distinction between "his" property, "her" property, and "their" property, then they don't think the actual person's name on the lease matters.  And neither do I. 

[OzmO]

I gave you two statements, one which said she rented, one which say they both rented.  How do you conclude that nullifies my point? 

I don't conclude that those 2 statements notify your point.

You ended you post saying you still haven't read where law enforcement thought it was an issue.  

If that's the case, your 2 points don't mean much.  If it is an issue, and if in fact he doesn't live there, nor owns the property, using the fact he owns the property is moot too.

[OzmO]

You don't have remind me that my opinion doesn't mean crap.  I'm well aware of that.  Nobody cares what any of us say on this board.  But that doesn't stop us from waxing eloquent.   

If they aren't talking about a distinction between "his" property, "her" property, and "their" property, then they don't think the actual person's name on the lease matters.  And neither do I. 

According to you they haven't talked about his, her and their property.  So again, those 2 arguments about his justification to shoot because it's his property (if in fact it is, which may not be) is moot.

[Dos Equis]

I don't conclude that those 2 statements notify your point.

You ended you post saying you still haven't read where law enforcement thought it was an issue.  

If that's the case, your 2 points don't mean much.  If it is an issue, and if in fact he doesn't live there, nor owns the property, using the fact he owns the property is moot too.

"It" referred to whose name is on the lease.  Nobody cares. 

[OzmO]

"It" referred to whose name is on the lease.  Nobody cares. 

So then, as it stands, whose property it is doesn't matter, hence your 2 points in the argument don't either, in the context to figuring out if they should be charge accords tot he law, however, if it is just about supporting your opinion, then yes, although he may not really own th property legally, which in any case doesn't matter to you, because he's doinking her there a few nights each week.  (honorably of course as they are to be married)   

[Dos Equis]

According to you they haven't talked about his, her and their property.  So again, those 2 arguments about his justification to shoot because it's his property (if in fact it is, which may not be) is moot.

I never said he was justified to shoot because it was his property.  Nor did I say he was justified to shoot solely because the incident happened at 4 a.m., or because they recently moved in, or because the guy tried to open the door twice, or because there was an incident about a week prior, etc.  All of those pieces are part of the analysis and they all have to be considered together.  

But everything I'm saying is moot because it's nothing more than message board talk.  

Although this is the place where we solve the world's problems . . . .

[OzmO]

I never said he was justified to shoot because it was his property.  Nor did I say he was justified to shoot solely because the incident happened at 4 a.m., or because they recently moved in, or because the guy tried to open the door twice, or because there was an incident about a week prior, etc.  All of those pieces are part of the analysis and they all have to be considered together.  

But everything I'm saying is moot because it's nothing more than message board talk.  

Although this is the place where we solve the world's problems . . . .

Well ya......

Side note, I agree all parts should be considered as they relate to the law.

[Dos Equis]

So then, as it stands, whose property it is doesn't matter, hence your 2 points in the argument don't either, in the context to figuring out if they should be charge accords tot he law, however, if it is just about supporting your opinion, then yes, although he may not really own th property legally, which in any case doesn't matter to you, because he's doinking her there a few nights each week.  (honorably of course as they are to be married)   

No.  Whose property it is matters to me.  In determining whether the property is "his," the fact his name may or may not appear on the lease doesn't matter to me in light of all of the other factors (sleeping there, stuff there, fiancé just rented so likely their place, etc.).  

[Dos Equis]

Well ya......

Side note, I agree all parts should be considered as they relate to the law.

Agree.

[OzmO]

No.  Whose property it is matters to me.  In determining whether the property is "his," the fact his name may or may not appear on the lease doesn't matter to me in light of all of the other factors (sleeping there, stuff there, fiancé just rented so likely their place, etc.).  

Isn't that what I just said?  


You are kind of beating a dead horse here 

[Dos Equis]

Isn't that what I just said?  


You are kind of beating a dead horse here 

lol   

[Jack T. Cross]

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/

Yeah, I noticed that in the AP article 24KT posted (to show where she'd gotten the idea about separate addresses).

Obviously, the door alarms didn't waken the wife, and presumably did not sound very long. I believe the woman didn't realize her husband was gone until she woke up that morning.

I can only hope that many will learn from this story.

[24KT]

Correct.  And an angry man had been at the house about a week or so beforehand looking for his fiancé.  That's the reason he started keeping the gun at their house in the first place.    

The man was NOT looking for his fiancé, he was looking for someone who did not live there, and who his fiancé did not know. Could have been a previous tenant? Could have been the wrong house?

Personally, I think anyone who is afraid of a knock on their front door, has no business renting a home.
Move into an institution, ...with padded walls.

[24KT]

No.  Whose property it is matters to me.  In determining whether the property is "his," the fact his name may or may not appear on the lease doesn't matter to me in light of all of the other factors (sleeping there, stuff there, fiancé just rented so likely their place, etc.).  

Whether or not his name is on the lease is a valid issue.

If someone were to have fallen and broken a limb on the property, his name on the lease would have implications. You can sue a homeowner, as well as a tenant, ...but someone cannot sue a man for negligence or failure to maintain by-law statutes... regardless of how many of his possessions were located within the property, or how many nights he spent there. He would have no legal obligation to maintain the property, and he would have no legal standing in a court of law.

[tonymctones]

Whether or not his name is on the lease is a valid issue.

If someone were to have fallen and broken a limb on the property, his name on the lease would have implications. You can sue a homeowner, as well as a tenant, ...but someone cannot sue a man for negligence or failure to maintain by-law statutes... regardless of how many of his possessions were located within the property, or how many nights he spent there. He would have no legal obligation to maintain the property, and he would have no legal standing in a court of law.

obligation is the key word, in self defense it doesnt matter where you are if you feel you are in danger of imminent harm

he has no obligation to act in a different way if his name is on the lease or not....

[24KT]

obligation is the key word, in self defense it doesnt matter where you are if you feel you are in danger of imminent harm

he has no obligation to act in a different way if his name is on the lease or not....

If thats the standard by which "self-defense" is determined, there's something very wrong with the laws.
any paranoid individual is then given free leave to pop anyone, and claim self- defence.

I believe the legal standard is based upon whether it is a "reasonable" response.
Having been in Hendrix's shoes, and in far more threatening situations, (like an attempted kidnapping where we would have been fully justified in shooting the man, but didn't) I do not believe his was a reasonable response.

And by reasonable, I'm not referring to whether or not one can "reason" through his thought processes,
But rather whether his response of shooting 4 times into a shadow was a "reasonable" response (read intelligent, responsible discharge of a weapon) to someone not responding to his orders. He was not patrolling the mean streets of Baghdad as an occupying force who the residents wanted dead. He was stateside, with no more authority than any other CIVILIAN. The police were enroute, and he had no business barking orders, let alone retaliatory, punitive, gunfire. What the fvck did he think he was doing discharging his weapon? Obtaining "pain compliance?"  

[240 is Back]

obligation is the key word, in self defense it doesnt matter where you are if you feel you are in danger of imminent harm

he has no obligation to act in a different way if his name is on the lease or not....

"trespass". 

It'll be interesting if this is hie legal defense.  I wish they'd hurry up and decide.  Message board members hate waiting ro months for answers we have decided within 30 seconds of skimming the story

[24KT]

"trespass". 

It'll be interesting if this is hie legal defense.  I wish they'd hurry up and decide.  Message board members hate waiting ro months for answers we have decided within 30 seconds of skimming the story

    touché

[Jack T. Cross]

If thats the standard by which "self-defense" is determined, there's something very wrong with the laws.
any paranoid individual is then given free leave to pop anyone, and claim self- defence.

I believe the legal standard is based upon whether it is a "reasonable" response.
Having been in Hendrix's shoes, and in far more threatening situations, (like an attempted kidnapping where we would have been fully justified in shooting the man, but didn't) I do not believe his was a reasonable response.

And by reasonable, I'm not referring to whether or not one can "reason" through his thought processes,
But rather whether his response of shooting 4 times into a shadow was a "reasonable" response (read intelligent, responsible discharge of a weapon) to someone not responding to his orders. He was not patrolling the mean streets of Baghdad as an occupying force who the residents wanted dead. He was stateside, with no more authority than any other CIVILIAN. The police were enroute, and he had no business barking orders, let alone retaliatory, punitive, gunfire. What the fvck did he think he was doing discharging his weapon? Obtaining "pain compliance?"  

Westbrook was approaching Hendrix, as well (according to Hendrix).

By the way, when you say this:

And by reasonable, I'm not referring to whether or not one can "reason" through his thought processes,
But rather whether his response of shooting 4 times into a shadow was a "reasonable" response

How would you determine the one, without the other? (calling it a day...will check back later)

[Jack T. Cross]

"trespass". 

It'll be interesting if this is hie legal defense.  I wish they'd hurry up and decide.  Message board members hate waiting ro months for answers we have decided within 30 seconds of skimming the story

What's the story with this, 240?