Author Topic: Stand Your Ground Law's Latest Victim  (Read 71617 times)

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66395
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Stand Your Ground Law's Latest Victim
« Reply #800 on: December 27, 2013, 05:17:51 PM »


That's not an example of shredding anything.

Jack T. Cross

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4098
  • Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)
Re: Stand Your Ground Law's Latest Victim
« Reply #801 on: December 27, 2013, 05:20:02 PM »
Wow, 24KT. Stories where a person will go through extraordinary lengths without having any verification, confirmation, or anything but some neurotic assumption(?), are really baffling. I always want to ask the person WHAT THE HELL could have caused it.

No problem to let your mind run away sometimes, but you must be careful with what you establish as truth, or there could be big trouble.

Jack T. Cross

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 4098
  • Using Surveillance for Political Subversion(?)
Re: Stand Your Ground Law's Latest Victim
« Reply #802 on: December 27, 2013, 05:25:43 PM »
That's for darned sure! I think one could say shooting a defenceless mute, dazed, confused, and helpless Alzheimer's victim could be considered a life-changing wrong move. It was certainly life changing for Westbrook

Yeah. That line really jumped out at me, too.

24KT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24454
  • Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244
Re: Stand Your Ground Law's Latest Victim
« Reply #803 on: December 27, 2013, 05:38:59 PM »
Wow, 24KT. Stories where a person will go through extraordinary lengths without having any verification, confirmation, or anything but some neurotic assumption(?), are always baffling. I always want to ask the person WHAT THE HELL could have caused it.

No problem to let your mind run away sometimes, but you must be careful with what you establish as truth, or there could be big trouble.

Exactly. Plus there were some rumblings about me. Some people had done me wrong, and universal karmic justice was swift. One person ended up dead, another a paraplegic . It was a little too swift, and too quick for some, and many wondered if I had not used the boyfriends extended family connections to expedite justice. The questions had the potential to give rise to the additional need to be extra vigilante about security.

There was room for mistaken identity all over, but my boyfriend was pretty sure he wasn't a hired hand. Anyone doing that kind of work would never have dared to do it with him on the scene, ...either that or he was a total beginner in waaaay over his head.  It could have ended very tragically that night.
w

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66395
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Stand Your Ground Law's Latest Victim
« Reply #804 on: December 27, 2013, 05:54:21 PM »
That's for darned sure! I think one could say shooting a defenceless mute, dazed, confused, and helpless Alzheimer's victim could be considered a life-changing wrong move. It was certainly life changing for Westbrook

Quote
His girlfriend was still on the phone with the 911 operator when the shooting took place.

Earlier in the day, the elderly gentleman had encountered a patrolman who had noticed he wasn't properly dressed for the weather. He stopped and questioned him. His response to the man was "You better head on home, it's getting cold"... then he drove away. Unfortunately, the old man didn't quite know which way home was.

My understanding is that Hendrix has now been charged for the shooting.

24KT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24454
  • Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244
Re: Stand Your Ground Law's Latest Victim
« Reply #805 on: December 27, 2013, 06:08:10 PM »
Ya so... What's your point? That all the circumstances were not immediately clear in the few days afterwards, ...or that some news outlets provide conflicting information? Or is it that you're incapable of a mature  discussion. Seriously what's your point?
w

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22846
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Stand Your Ground Law's Latest Victim
« Reply #806 on: December 27, 2013, 06:10:39 PM »
That's not an example of shredding anything.

Pretty obvious.

You have to apply the reality to the questioning.

How do you know how scared he was?
Can you be certain he was scared enough?
Where you reading his mind?
Were you feeling his emotions?
Do you for certain he was scared enough or were you making a guess based on fact or assumption?
What is scared enough?
Have you seen anyone act scared before that wasn't actually as scarfed as they were acting?  If so how would you know he was or wasn't?

I could list more questions, but don't really want to invest the time.  It's common sense.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66395
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Stand Your Ground Law's Latest Victim
« Reply #807 on: December 27, 2013, 06:13:23 PM »
Ya so... What's your point? That all the circumstances were not immediately clear in the few days afterwards, ...or that some news outlets provide conflicting information? Or is it that you're incapable of a mature  discussion. Seriously what's your point?

Point is he's not mute.  You acknowledged he wasn't mute by claiming he had a conversation with the police. 

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66395
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Stand Your Ground Law's Latest Victim
« Reply #808 on: December 27, 2013, 06:22:20 PM »
Pretty obvious.

You have to apply the reality to the questioning.

How do you know how scared he was?
Can you be certain he was scared enough?
Where you reading his mind?
Were you feeling his emotions?
Do you for certain he was scared enough or were you making a guess based on fact or assumption?
What is scared enough?
Have you seen anyone act scared before that wasn't actually as scarfed as they were acting?  If so how would you know he was or wasn't?

I could list more questions, but don't really want to invest the time.  It's common sense.


None of those questions are examples of shredding anything either.  If we're actually using common sense, we'd look at the facts as we know them and see how those facts fit with what the witnesses say.  In this instance, there are only a handful of witnesses, they all say the same thing (Hendrix and his fiancé were afraid), and their fear is consistent with the facts. 

What I haven't heard about is a neighbor (or anyone else) who may have seen or heard what happened.  Without that, all we have is a group of people all saying the same thing, which is consistent with the facts.

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Stand Your Ground Law's Latest Victim
« Reply #809 on: December 27, 2013, 11:48:16 PM »
what a messed up story.   

I guess, in order to not charge the guy with anything, we have to say we're okay with what happened. 

Cause to not charge him, it means he's back on the street tomorrow.  With that same gun.  Able to do the same thing.  Firing rounds into a shadow in the dark.  Sending bullets into something he cannot identify. 

I dont want to see him charged with murder... but the idea of this dude shooting guns at people because he doesn't want to wait for the cops to arrive... scary.  It's scary to think some people endorse this kinda behavior... because if they don't even charge him with "firing a weapon in city limits" or disturbing the peace or reckless endangerment or involuntary manslaughter or SOMETHING...

Then it means we're 100% okay with him doing this.  Again.  And again.  And you set the precedent that it's okay to fire blindly at something when you are tired of waiting for cops.  It's in GA, it may not affect you.  But the more it's okay'd, the more likely some stressed out dude (over something unrelated) will open fire on you when you're trying to catch your dog from his yard late at night - just because you don't obey his commands fast enough. 

If you're okay with that - if you're okay with ten Hendrix's living on every block in the USA, then hey, support him not being charged.  But if you want to make people hesitate before going outside and shooting a handful of bullets into shadows, then maybe you charge him with something small.

I stand by my belief that they're working out a plea deal with him, everyone taking their time til after the holidays.  He'll plead to something, enjoy 2 years of probation and maybe 'common sense training' or something, and maybe even lose his guns for a year or three.  No jail, but no free pass too.

24KT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24454
  • Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244
Re: Stand Your Ground Law's Latest Victim
« Reply #810 on: December 28, 2013, 06:02:25 AM »
what a messed up story.   

I guess, in order to not charge the guy with anything, we have to say we're okay with what happened. 

Cause to not charge him, it means he's back on the street tomorrow.  With that same gun.  Able to do the same thing.  Firing rounds into a shadow in the dark.  Sending bullets into something he cannot identify. 

I dont want to see him charged with murder... but the idea of this dude shooting guns at people because he doesn't want to wait for the cops to arrive... scary.  It's scary to think some people endorse this kinda behavior... because if they don't even charge him with "firing a weapon in city limits" or disturbing the peace or reckless endangerment or involuntary manslaughter or SOMETHING...

Then it means we're 100% okay with him doing this.  Again.  And again.  And you set the precedent that it's okay to fire blindly at something when you are tired of waiting for cops.  It's in GA, it may not affect you.  But the more it's okay'd, the more likely some stressed out dude (over something unrelated) will open fire on you when you're trying to catch your dog from his yard late at night - just because you don't obey his commands fast enough. 

If you're okay with that - if you're okay with ten Hendrix's living on every block in the USA, then hey, support him not being charged.  But if you want to make people hesitate before going outside and shooting a handful of bullets into shadows, then maybe you charge him with something small.

I stand by my belief that they're working out a plea deal with him, everyone taking their time til after the holidays.  He'll plead to something, enjoy 2 years of probation and maybe 'common sense training' or something, and maybe even lose his guns for a year or three.  No jail, but no free pass too.

There you go again, ...bringing the common sense, and clear analysis to the debate.

I dub thee... THE PRINCE OF REASON!
w

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: Stand Your Ground Law's Latest Victim
« Reply #811 on: December 28, 2013, 06:28:10 AM »
what a messed up story.   

I guess, in order to not charge the guy with anything, we have to say we're okay with what happened. 

Cause to not charge him, it means he's back on the street tomorrow.  With that same gun.  Able to do the same thing.  Firing rounds into a shadow in the dark.  Sending bullets into something he cannot identify. 

I dont want to see him charged with murder... but the idea of this dude shooting guns at people because he doesn't want to wait for the cops to arrive... scary.  It's scary to think some people endorse this kinda behavior... because if they don't even charge him with "firing a weapon in city limits" or disturbing the peace or reckless endangerment or involuntary manslaughter or SOMETHING...

Then it means we're 100% okay with him doing this.  Again.  And again.  And you set the precedent that it's okay to fire blindly at something when you are tired of waiting for cops.  It's in GA, it may not affect you.  But the more it's okay'd, the more likely some stressed out dude (over something unrelated) will open fire on you when you're trying to catch your dog from his yard late at night - just because you don't obey his commands fast enough. 

If you're okay with that - if you're okay with ten Hendrix's living on every block in the USA, then hey, support him not being charged.  But if you want to make people hesitate before going outside and shooting a handful of bullets into shadows, then maybe you charge him with something small.

I stand by my belief that they're working out a plea deal with him, everyone taking their time til after the holidays.  He'll plead to something, enjoy 2 years of probation and maybe 'common sense training' or something, and maybe even lose his guns for a year or three.  No jail, but no free pass too.
full of stupidity, made up "facts" and hypocrisey...

not suprised you agree samson

240 is Back

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 102387
  • Complete website for only $300- www.300website.com
Re: Stand Your Ground Law's Latest Victim
« Reply #812 on: December 28, 2013, 06:40:19 AM »
tony,

Should Hendrix receive ZERO charge?   Or a small charge?   

24KT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24454
  • Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244
Re: Stand Your Ground Law's Latest Victim
« Reply #813 on: December 28, 2013, 07:31:45 AM »
tony,

Should Hendrix receive ZERO charge?   Or a small charge?   

I think he should receive an appropriate charge, not a symbolic slap on the wrist, but appropriate for what he did.
w

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22846
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Stand Your Ground Law's Latest Victim
« Reply #814 on: December 28, 2013, 08:59:46 AM »
None of those questions are examples of shredding anything either.  If we're actually using common sense, we'd look at the facts as we know them and see how those facts fit with what the witnesses say.  In this instance, there are only a handful of witnesses, they all say the same thing (Hendrix and his fiancé were afraid), and their fear is consistent with the facts.  
What I haven't heard about is a neighbor (or anyone else) who may have seen or heard what happened.  Without that, all we have is a group of people all saying the same thing, which is consistent with the facts.

Once again you are ignoring that fear isn't a black or white thing. I don't know.if you are just being obtuse on purpose or not.   In the instance of fear that matters the sheriff wasn't there and the 911 operator was o the phone.  The sheriff saw Hendrix after he just shot an innocent man and the operator who.hears scared people all day long can only estimate.  While their testimony will support his defense, it won't impact it much at all because it will get shredded for the reasons I stated. 

For the defense.to.make a case Hendrix was scared enough they will have to establish through personal opinion from witnesses who weren't there who are just theorizing. Very easy to shred.  Maybe cause you made up.your mind about the Casey Anthony case to the point you ignored other angles.or.evidence.is the reason you got it so wrong.  If I remember it right there were lots of angles for the defense to create doubt because of lack of solid evidence. .  Maybe you are doing the same thing here with the fear/witness issue.

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: Stand Your Ground Law's Latest Victim
« Reply #815 on: December 28, 2013, 09:32:54 AM »
tony,

Should Hendrix receive ZERO charge?   Or a small charge?   
what does this have to do with your hypocrisey, making up "facts and full blown stupidity?

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66395
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Stand Your Ground Law's Latest Victim
« Reply #816 on: December 30, 2013, 09:16:04 AM »
Once again you are ignoring that fear isn't a black or white thing. I don't know.if you are just being obtuse on purpose or not.   In the instance of fear that matters the sheriff wasn't there and the 911 operator was o the phone.  The sheriff saw Hendrix after he just shot an innocent man and the operator who.hears scared people all day long can only estimate.  While their testimony will support his defense, it won't impact it much at all because it will get shredded for the reasons I stated. 

For the defense.to.make a case Hendrix was scared enough they will have to establish through personal opinion from witnesses who weren't there who are just theorizing. Very easy to shred.  Maybe cause you made up.your mind about the Casey Anthony case to the point you ignored other angles.or.evidence.is the reason you got it so wrong.  If I remember it right there were lots of angles for the defense to create doubt because of lack of solid evidence. .  Maybe you are doing the same thing here with the fear/witness issue.

No I'm not being stupid on purpose.  Just being normal.  You can call me stupid if you like, but I'm really just disagreeing with you. 

Nothing is going to get shredded, at least not based on what you outlined.  Anyone looking at this reasonably and objectively would conclude a homeowner in this scenario would be afraid.  If you start with that premise, then add in the only witnesses available, and the witnesses corroborate the objective facts, there is really one logical conclusion. 

Yes, there are different degrees of fear, but the kind of fear a person feels when they believe someone is trying to illegally enter their home at 4 a.m. is pretty intense.  It's something most reasonable people can relate to.

And the different ways fear would be measured in this instance all support what most reasonable people would relate to:

1.  The facts themselves support a reasonable belief that the homeowner should be afraid that an intruder is trying to enter their home at 4 a.m.

2.  The voice on the phone sounds like a fearful person (as the 911 operator will say). 

3.  Shortly after the incident, the sheriff observes their demeanor and concludes they look fearful to him. 

Could all of those people be discredited and come across as dishonest?  Yes.  Is that likely or reasonable?  No.   

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22846
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Stand Your Ground Law's Latest Victim
« Reply #817 on: December 30, 2013, 09:31:46 AM »
No I'm not being stupid on purpose.  Just being normal.  You can call me stupid if you like, but I'm really just disagreeing with you.  

Nothing is going to get shredded, at least not based on what you outlined.  Anyone looking at this reasonably and objectively would conclude a homeowner in this scenario would be afraid.  If you start with that premise, then add in the only witnesses available, and the witnesses corroborate the objective facts, there is really one logical conclusion.  

Yes, there are different degrees of fear, but the kind of fear a person feels when they believe someone is trying to illegally enter their home at 4 a.m. is pretty intense.  It's something most reasonable people can relate to.

And the different ways fear would be measured in this instance all support what most reasonable people would relate to:

1.  The facts themselves support a reasonable belief that the homeowner should be afraid that an intruder is trying to enter their home at 4 a.m.

2.  The voice on the phone sounds like a fearful person (as the 911 operator will say).  

3.  Shortly after the incident, the sheriff observes their demeanor and concludes they look fearful to him.  

Could all of those people be discredited and come across as dishonest?  Yes.  Is that likely or reasonable?  No.    


A.  That would be true if being a afraid is a black and white thing, on or off, yes or no.  But its not.    So your arguments about the impact of those witnesses falls apart there.

B.  There wasn't forced entry, which means that argument doesn't fly.

On #1  refer to "B"

On #2 refer to "A"

On #3, Hendrix just shot an innocent man.  Most any one would be emotional.

C.  Its not about discrediting a witness.  Where have i brought that up?  Its about the fact that their testimonies don't mean much, as they will get shredded by lawyers showing that a person CANNOT accurately estimate another person's level of fear enough to differential whether or not that person felt they were imminent danger of death or injury.  ESPECIALLY if one witness is on the phone and the other comes minutes after the fact.

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: Stand Your Ground Law's Latest Victim
« Reply #818 on: December 30, 2013, 03:58:12 PM »
they still havent decided on this shit yet?

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22846
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Stand Your Ground Law's Latest Victim
« Reply #819 on: December 30, 2013, 04:14:06 PM »
they still havent decided on this shit yet?
I don't think they are charging him.  But nothing since the articles we have been talking on

tonymctones

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 26520
Re: Stand Your Ground Law's Latest Victim
« Reply #820 on: December 30, 2013, 04:18:13 PM »
I don't think they are charging him.  But nothing since the articles we have been talking on
you imagine that as much publicity as this got that it would be news when they decide

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22846
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Stand Your Ground Law's Latest Victim
« Reply #821 on: December 30, 2013, 04:26:00 PM »
you imagine that as much publicity as this got that it would be news when they decide

I think its already forgotten.  Nothing new has been written on it since Dec 10th.  I was actually considering finding out who the local newspaper was down there and calling them.  but that's a little too much involvement lol.

However, from what I understand the whole Zimmerman thing was labeled as an ordinary murder until people started playing the 911 call on some radio stations.  Then it became a racist persecution deal.

I don't know that this is going to happen here. 

I suspect Westbrook's wife isn't making much noise over it and therefore its not as big of a thing.  But i don't k now.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66395
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Stand Your Ground Law's Latest Victim
« Reply #822 on: January 07, 2014, 02:19:04 PM »
A little additional info.  He was wearing a bracelet identifying him as an Alzheimer's patient.  Too bad the officer didn't see it.

A dozen what ifs fell into place, each decision another step toward tragedy in Chickamauga, Ga.
By Tyler Jett
Thursday, December 5, 2013


CHICKAMAUGA, Ga. — Deanne Westbrook woke up around 5 a.m. on Nov. 27, alone. At some point in the morning, she thought, her husband must have sneaked out of bed.

She searched the house for him.

Ever since Ron Westbrook, 72, started showing signs of Alzheimer’s disease three years ago, Deanne had grown used to looking after him, keeping the former Air Force lieutenant colonel in her sights.

Earlier this year, Deanne stopped him as he tried to go out for a walk in the middle of the night. On this morning, though, she found no sign of Ron. And soon, she heard the doorbell ring. On the front porch, she found deputies with the Walker County Sheriff’s Office.

“There’s no easy way to tell you this,” she remembers someone saying, “but your husband is dead. He has been shot.”

The news still hasn’t quite set in, Westbrook said in her living room Wednesday, one day after burying her husband of 51 years.

“It’s like he should be here,” she said. “I can’t believe he’s not.”

Wearing a silver bracelet that identified him as a man suffering from Alzheimer’s disease, Ron Westbrook had wandered with his two dogs and a stranger’s mail to a home at 188 Cottage Crest Court on Nov. 27, Walker County Sheriff Steve Wilson said. The Westbrooks had installed a buzzer that sounded any time someone entered or exited the house — for situations such as this — but Deanne did not hear it.

Hours after he left home, Westbrook stood on the front porch of a stranger’s house three miles away. He rang the doorbell and jiggled the knob. Nobody answered. At 3:53 a.m., a woman inside called 911.

Twelve minutes later, with deputies on the way and his girlfriend still on the phone, Joe Hendrix walked out of the house with a hundgun and rounded the corner to the backyard. The girlfriend, whose name has not been released, did not tell dispatchers that Hendrix left, Wilson said.

Hendrix, 34, of Ooltewah, would later tell officers he could barely see Westbrook. He said he called out to Westbrook and heard nothing back.

Westbrook began to walk toward Hendrix, and Hendrix shot him in the chest.

A week later, Hendrix has not been charged. The Georgia Bureau of Investigations and the Walker County Sheriff’s Office are still investigating, District Attorney Herbert “Buzz” Franklin said Wednesday. Franklin hopes to meet with investigators from both agencies before deciding whether to bring a case against Hendrix.

The slaying was one of two within the Lookout Mountain Judicial Circuit in November in which the killer told detectives he defended himself. On Nov. 11, according to the Catoosa County Sheriff’s Office, 69-year-old Fred Youngblood shot a 17-year-old dead after he caught the boy stealing scrap metal from his yard. He told investigators he shot the teen because he charged at Youngblood.


Three weeks later, Franklin said, that investigation is still open, too. He hopes to meet with investigators from the GBI and the Catoosa County Sheriff’s Office soon to determine whether Youngblood actually did act in self-defense.

Hendrix did not return multiple calls seeking comment Wednesday, but his attorney said his client has been unfairly targeted in a case that has gained international attention. Lee Davis pointed out that, about two hours before Hendrix killed Westbrook, a deputy from the sheriff’s office stopped Westbrook around 2:30 a.m.

At a mailbox on Marble Top Road, Westbrook — still wearing the bracelet identifying his disease — told the deputy that he lived nearby, which was true until he moved in the 1970s. Wilson would later say that his deputy left Westbrook there.

Davis said this is a key point that people should consider when they talk about his client.

“They took no action,” Davis said of the deputy. “Had they taken action, this would not have happened. … The scrutiny seems to be all on (Hendrix) right now. I’m not blaming the sheriff’s department. I’m just saying it’s not as simple as people make it appear.”

This is not Hendrix’s first time in the public eye. Last year, he served as the communications director for Scottie Mayfield in an unsuccessful campaign to unseat Congressman Chuck Fleischmann.

“He was bright, energetic and positive,” Mayfield said Wednesday, referring to Hendrix. “That’s about all I know about him.”

For her part, Deanne Westbrook said her husband was quiet but friendly. He grew up in a two-room Rossville home with an outhouse and as a boy dreamed of becoming a fighter pilot.

He met his wife 54 years ago at Rossville High School. He played the trumpet, she the clarinet. He later joined the Air Force, graduated from the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga and became a Tennessee Valley Authority engineer. He and Deanne raised three sons.

In 1990, while still at TVA, he became a part-time commander of the 241st EIS Squadron, a group that traveled the world and installed communications systems into military units. He went to Germany and Italy, and he always came home with a gift for Deanne: a crystal punch bowl, a tea kettle, a cuckoo clock.

But he began showing signs of Alzheimer’s in 2010. He would ask for dinner after he had already eaten. He would ask to go home when he was in the living room.

Eventually, the man who once could remember the first names of all 180 men under his command began wondering who his own children were. Sometimes, he forgot Deanne’s name.

Robert Patillo, a lawyer for the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow PUSH Coalition, said the organization plans to reach out to the Westbrook family about joining the group’s lawsuit against Gov. Nathan Deal. The suit is aimed at striking down Georgia’s controversial Stand Your Ground law.

Jason Westbrook, 41, says he doesn’t like that his father’s death has become a lightning rod for gun rights. He owns a gun, and his father did, too. Still, Jason Westbrook struggles with how he should feel.

He is angry, of course. Angry at the situation, angry at Hendrix for walking outside last week instead of waiting for the deputies. But Westbrook said he became a Christian four years ago, and he doesn’t want to be a man of hate.

“You cannot harbor those things in your heart, no matter what it is,” he said. “This is the ultimate test in forgiveness. I can’t allow that to take root in my heart. I can’t do it. I really don’t want (Hendrix’s) life destroyed. Do I think there needs to be some kind of penalty? Sort of. But I can’t be like that.”

Deanne admits feeling similar conflicting emotions toward her husband’s killer.

“I would hate to think that I had shot somebody that was innocent and didn’t need to be killed,” she said. “I would hate to think what that must be like. As hard as it is for us, it’s bound to be hard for him, too.”

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2013/dec/05/dozen-what-ifs-fell-place-each-decision-another-st/?print

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66395
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Stand Your Ground Law's Latest Victim
« Reply #823 on: March 20, 2014, 06:59:21 PM »
This was the right decision.  Not surprised.  Somebody let Jag know that he was not actually charged, despite her contention that he had already been charged.

No charges in fatal shooting of Ga. Alzheimer's patient
By CRIMESIDER STAFF
AP February 28, 2014

ATLANTA - A man will not face criminal charges for fatally shooting a wandering Alzheimer's patient whom he mistook for an intruder in north Georgia.

The local prosecutor said Friday that 35-year-old Joe Hendrix has been cleared in the Nov. 27 fatal shooting of 72-year-old Ronald Westbrook.

District Attorney Herbert Franklin says Hendrix will not be charged in what his office called a "tragic shooting death."

Westbrook suffered from dementia. Police say he slipped out of his house and tried entering the home of Hendrix's fiancée just before 4 a.m. The fiancée called police, and Hendrix got his handgun and went outside in the dark. Hendrix told police that Westbrook did not respond to commands to stop or identify himself. Instead, Westbrook approached Hendrix, who opened fire.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/no-charges-in-fatal-shooting-of-georgia-alzheimers-patient/

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 66395
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: Stand Your Ground Law's Latest Victim
« Reply #824 on: March 20, 2014, 07:21:45 PM »
Georgia man who shot wandering Alzheimer’s patient will not face charges
Published time: March 01, 2014

A man who shot and killed an elderly Alzheimer’s patient in rural Georgia after mistaking him for a prowler will not face criminal charges, a local prosecutor said. The state is also one of several considering broadening its ‘stand your ground’ law.

In late November, Ronald Westbrook, 72, wandered from his home around 01:00 EST. Hours later, he randomly approached the nearby home of the fiancé off Joe Hendrix, 35. Westbrook repeatedly knocked on the door and rang the doorbell of Chickamauga, Georgia house.

As his fiancée called 911, Hendrix called at someone he saw in silhouette who did not answer, he told investigators. Westbrook was carrying what Hendrix described as a cylindrical object that turned out to be a flashlight. Once Hendrix determined the man walking toward him would not stop despite repeated requests, he fired three or four times, fatally wounding Westbrook.

District Attorney Herbert “Buzz” Franklin said since it could not be proven that Hendrix was not acting in self-defense, he would not press criminal charges.

"It's a difficult burden to meet," Franklin said, according to AP. "You have to be able to prove what was in their mind at the time of the act. All the circumstances here could lead one to reasonably believe that Mr. Hendrix was acting in self-defense."

According to police, Westbrook, who his family says had been suffering from Alzheimer’s disease for two years, had been walking in the near-20 degree weather for four hours with his dog, wearing only a light coat and a straw hat, before approaching the home of Hendrix’s fiance, possibly drawn by the house’s porch light. Westbrook was clutching a piece of mail when he was found by police.

"I'm a little upset," said Deanne Westbrook, the slain man's widow. "...I really wanted to see it go before a grand jury, and then maybe before a jury. But they tell me there's not enough evidence for that."

Franklin said he understood the Westbrook family’s frustration, but he stood by his decision.

"What little satisfaction there may be in that, I might be able to take some small comfort in that. But the Westbrook family lost their father, husband, and there's nothing we can do to change any of that," he said.

Lee David, attorney for Hendrix, said his client appreciated the care shown by investigators.

"Mr. Hendrix fully acknowledges the loss to Westbrook family, and his thoughts and prayers are with them," Davis said in a statement.

The Nov. 27 shooting was preceded by a possible earlier encounter with Mr. Westbrook.

On Nov. 19, Hendrix’s fiancée called 911 to report a man carrying a piece of paper ringing her doorbell just before midnight and asking for someone she did not recognize, according to Hendrix's attorney and police reports obtained by AP.

She had also called Hendrix, but by the time he and law enforcement arrived, the man was gone. Worried, Hendrix brought his gun to her home from his nearby home in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

About a week later, Westbrook slipped out of his home without his wife noticing. His widow said he had a difficult time remembering where he lived or identifying family members.

A Chickamauga resident called 911 around 02:30 EST saying a man was in her driveway shining a flashlight into a car. The sheriff’s deputy who responded to the call later found a man identified as Westbrook walking away from an area mailbox with a flashlight and several pieces of mail, according to authorities.

Westbrook seemed flustered and upset that he was being questioned by the officer. He told the deputy he lived up the driveway and walked away. Then around 04:00, he approached the house of Hendrix’s fiancé.

Investigators believed Georgia’s ‘stand your ground’ law could have applied should charges have been filed against Hendrix. The state’s 2006 law says that a person "has no duty to retreat" and has the right to "stand his or her ground," including the use of deadly force pertaining to self-defense of one’s home or property.

Georgia is actually considering expanding the law, as the House is considering a provision that would allow individuals to invoke the defense for shootings that occur on public transportation.

In early November, civil rights leader Jesse Jackson’s Rainbow PUSH coalition filed a lawsuit against Georgia for what it alleges are uneven interpretations of the 'stand your ground' law.

http://rt.com/usa/georgia-alzheimers-shot-charges-302/