Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: 24KT on December 03, 2013, 03:49:00 PM
-
Stand Our Ground Law's Latest Victim: 72 yr. old elderly man with Alzheimers. ::)
-
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ga-homeowner-shoots-and-kills-elderly-alzheimers-patient/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ga-homeowner-shoots-and-kills-elderly-alzheimers-patient/)
Guy knocks on door at 4am. Doesn't verbally respond when asked and continues to walk towards homeowner.
I don't know the details of stand your ground, but it would seem to difficult to prove the homeowner could conclude he was in danger.
-
Thought-provoking video. Especially the last 20 seconds or so.
-
who are some other stand your ground victims?
-
he didn't answer him so you shot him dead,sounds reasonable ::)
-
Some old guy with Alzheimer felt threatened and shot someone. He doesn't have all his mental faculties. This doesn't mean anything.
-
Some old guy with Alzheimer felt threatened and shot someone. He doesn't have all his mental faculties. This doesn't mean anything.
you have it backwards
-
you have it backwards
Even so, it doesn't mean anything. I fail to see how this incident is relevant to anything. I could list several unfortunate murders in the last week alone. This doesn't prove a point nor does it establish a trend.
-
Even so, it doesn't mean anything. I fail to see how this incident is relevant to anything. I could list several unfortunate murders in the last week alone. This doesn't prove a point nor does it establish a trend.
it proves the the shooter in a fucking idiot
-
it proves the the shooter in a fucking idiot
Yeah, a lot of people are idiots who do stupid things. There is a lot of selective concern/interest being demonstrated here.
-
Sounds like a tragic mistake. Nothing more.
Sheriff says Georgia ‘stand-your-ground’ law may apply to fatal shooting of man suffering Alzheimer’s, report says
Published November 29, 2013
FoxNews.com
Investigators search for evidence after a police say a Georgia fatally shot an elderly man suffering from Alzheimer's. Police have not brought charges in the man's death.
It is unclear if a Georgia man will face charges after police say he fatally shot an elderly man suffering from Alzheimer's after the man wandered into his backyard and rang his doorbell at 4 a.m. on Wednesday, The Times Free Press reported.
Sheriff's officials say Ronald Westbrook, 72, had walked about three miles in sub-freezing temperatures with his two dogs, then knocked on 34-year-old Joe Hendrix's door. They say Hendrix, who is "saddened and heartbroken," walked outside the home he rented in the Chickamauga, a neighborhood near the Tennessee border, and confronted Westbrook. He gave several verbal commands but Westbook, who was slow to talk, continued to walk toward him, the paper reported.
"In my personal opinion, I believe that he should have stayed inside the house," he said. "Did he violate any laws by exiting the house? No."
- Walker County Sheriff Steve Wilson
Hendrix, fearing for his safety, fired his handgun four times at the man, killing him with a bullet to the chest, police said. Westbrook was holding letters mailed to a home he used to live in in the neighborhood and was wearing a light jacket and straw hat despite freezing temperatures.
Hendrix’s fiancée, was on the phone with 911 and the shooting occurred during the approximately 10-minute wait for deputies to arrive, the report said.
Walker County Coroner W. Dewayne Wilson said Friday in a statement to The Associated Press that the autopsy is scheduled for Saturday at the Georgia Bureau of Investigation lab in Atlanta.
Walker County Sheriff Steve Wilson has said he had no doubts that Hendrix felt threatened during the encounter. No charges have been filed and they are cooperating, but The Free Press reported that Wilson said a circuit district attorney may bring charges after reviewing the evidence. Wilson said the Georgia "stand-your-ground" law may apply to this case, the report said.
"In my personal opinion, I believe that he should have stayed inside the house," he said. "Did he violate any laws by exiting the house? No."
Georgia's self-defense law generally allows a person to use force when they have reason to believe they are under a physical threat. The law does not necessarily require a person to retreat from a perceived threat even if backing down is possible. That's a distinction from traditional self-defense laws that gave homeowners wide latitude to defend themselves inside their residences, while typically requiring someone in any other location to seek ways to back down without resorting to violent action.
"Mr. Hendrix is clearly saddened and heartbroken," the sheriff said. "Mr. Hendrix has to live with his actions for the rest of his life."
Wilson said a sheriff's deputy had stopped Westbrook earlier in the night standing at a mailbox on nearby Marble Top Road, where Westbrook once lived. Westbrook told the deputy he was getting his mail.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/11/29/sheriff-says-georgia-stand-your-ground-law-may-apply-to-fatal-shooting-man/
-
Yeah, a lot of people are idiots who do stupid things. There is a lot of selective concern/interest being demonstrated here.
your right a lot of people are idiots who do stupid things,but a lot of people don't shot a 72 year old man dead
-
your right a lot of people are idiots who do stupid things,but a lot of people don't shot a 72 year old man dead
Yes they do. I just don't think you notice unless you can make a political cause out of it.
-
it proves the the shooter in a fucking idiot
The police were on their way. He was safe in his house behind locked door. There was someone in his yard and he didn't know who. So he grabbed his gun, ran outside, and shot at someone - He had ZERO idea what he was shooting at. He wasn't in danger.
He should be found guilty of manslaughter, at least.
What SHOULD he have done? Laid down on the floor facing the door behind a big hunk of metal. Sent the kids/wifey to hide in a closet. AK pointed at the door, giving the best "Come through this door and I'm gonna shoot you 30 times then I'm gonna fck every single one of those holes" in the meanest voice he can muster. No bad guy would come breaking down a door for this.
This guy is a stone cold idiot, a danger that belongs behind bars. He was impatient and fired at something when he didn't even know what it was... fcking idiot. I'd have no problem giving morons like this the death penalty - ELECTIVE gun battles. When the shooter leaves safety, with police on the way, to shoot bullets at an unknown figure in the dark.
-
The police were on their way. He was safe in his house behind locked door. There was someone in his yard and he didn't know who. So he grabbed his gun, ran outside, and shot at someone - He had ZERO idea what he was shooting at. He wasn't in danger.
He should be found guilty of manslaughter, at least.
What SHOULD he have done? Laid down on the floor facing the door behind a big hunk of metal. Sent the kids/wifey to hide in a closet. AK pointed at the door, giving the best "Come through this door and I'm gonna shoot you 30 times then I'm gonna fck every single one of those holes" in the meanest voice he can muster. No bad guy would come breaking down a door for this.
This guy is a stone cold idiot, a danger that belongs behind bars. He was impatient and fired at something when he didn't even know what it was... fcking idiot. I'd have no problem giving morons like this the death penalty - ELECTIVE gun battles. When the shooter leaves safety, with police on the way, to shoot bullets at an unknown figure in the dark.
I concur. Even without stand your ground type laws, this guy would have behaved recklessly.
-
Yes they do. I just don't think you notice unless you can make a political cause out of it.
list them
-
Sounds like a tragic mistake. Nothing more.
Sheriff says Georgia ‘stand-your-ground’ law may apply to fatal shooting of man suffering Alzheimer’s, report says
Published November 29, 2013
FoxNews.com
He was safe in his house. Police were on the way. It wasn't a mistake - it was piss poor judgement and a desire to serve up justice. Old man at the mailbox reading letters deserves 4 shots? Gimme a break.
Totally irresponsible. Not accidental though. He purposely said "fck this, I'm not waiting for the police, I'm going to go empty bullets into this person before I have any idea what is going on out there".
Just as easily, he could have killed a cop searching for a suspect.
Just as easily, he could have killed a drink person trying to get in the wrong house.
Just as easily, he could have walked into an ambush.
Or, just as easily, this fckstick could have waited safely in his home, gun in hand, in no danger at all, for police to arrive.
he wanted trigger time. Anyone who defends this... I hope you never get dementia in your older years and wander across the yards, where your trigger happy neighbor can wait til you stop over the property line and put fifteen .223 rounds in your ass. See if it feels like a 'tragic mistake' then... it's a prick who wanted trigger time, period.
-
He was safe in his house. Police were on the way. It wasn't a mistake - it was piss poor judgement and a desire to serve up justice. Old man at the mailbox reading letters deserves 4 shots? Gimme a break.
Totally irresponsible. Not accidental though. He purposely said "fck this, I'm not waiting for the police, I'm going to go empty bullets into this person before I have any idea what is going on out there".
Just as easily, he could have killed a cop searching for a suspect.
Just as easily, he could have killed a drink person trying to get in the wrong house.
Just as easily, he could have walked into an ambush.
Or, just as easily, this fckstick could have waited safely in his home, gun in hand, in no danger at all, for police to arrive.
he wanted trigger time. Anyone who defends this... I hope you never get dementia in your older years and wander across the yards, where your trigger happy neighbor can wait til you stop over the property line and put fifteen .223 rounds in your ass. See if it feels like a 'tragic mistake' then... it's a prick who wanted trigger time, period.
Meltdown. Still just making stuff up I see. ::)
-
I concur. Even without stand your ground type laws, this guy would have behaved recklessly.
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.
-
Meltdown. Still just making stuff up I see. ::)
of course, you're gonna defend this trigger happy idiot?
Safe in his home, but he runs outside to shoot someone with zero information.
Anyone who condones this kind of action probably isn't an actual gun owner, and probably doesn't carry a gun. There is SUCH a huge burden that comes with gun ownership.
I am actually a little surprised by you, beach bum. I think the majority of getbiggers will agree this dude was a trigger happy idiot, who desired shooting someone, who was never in fear for his life.
-
of course, you're gonna defend this trigger happy idiot?
Safe in his home, but he runs outside to shoot someone with zero information.
Anyone who condones this kind of action probably isn't an actual gun owner, and probably doesn't carry a gun. There is SUCH a huge burden that comes with gun ownership.
I am actually a little surprised by you, beach bum. I think the majority of getbiggers will agree this dude was a trigger happy idiot, who desired shooting someone, who was never in fear for his life.
I'm not surprised by you, just inventing facts as you go along.
-
of course, you're gonna defend this trigger happy idiot?
Safe in his home, but he runs outside to shoot someone with zero information.
Anyone who condones this kind of action probably isn't an actual gun owner, and probably doesn't carry a gun. There is SUCH a huge burden that comes with gun ownership.
I am actually a little surprised by you, beach bum. I think the majority of getbiggers will agree this dude was a trigger happy idiot, who desired shooting someone, who was never in fear for his life.
oh it was just a mistake ::)
-
list them
Tony Jeter 65 Stabbed to Death and Robbed 11/30/13
Dorothy Hendrix 76 Shot to death 11-26-13
Evelyn Norrell 93 throat slit 11-07-13
This is just a select few. I have a list going back to the beginning of the year. But you don't give a fuck unless you can make it political
-
oh it was just a mistake ::)
"A tragic mistake. nothing more."
Oh shit, I accidentally forgot the police were coming and ran outside to shoot 4 bullets into a shadowy figure in my yard posing zero threat to me cause I was tired of waiting..."
I can't wait to hear the 911 calls.
-
Tony Jeter 65 Stabbed to Death and Robbed 11/30/13
Dorothy Hendrix 76 Shot to death 11-26-13
Evelyn Norrell 93 throat slit 11-07-13
This is just a select few. I have a list going back to the beginning of the year. But you don't give a fuck unless you can make it political
apples and oranges but nice try
-
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.
The incident is tragic and stupid but the way people are so selective in what concerns them sickens me.
-
"A tragic mistake. nothing more."
Oh shit, I accidentally forgot the police were coming and ran outside to shoot 4 bullets into a shadowy figure in my yard posing zero threat to me cause I was tired of waiting..."
I can't wait to hear the 911 calls.
I can't believe anybody would back this guy, amazing
-
apples and oranges but nice try
They are worse, because this death was a result of stupidity while the other crimes were the result of pure malicious intent. But you don't give two shits about those people because you can't politicize their deaths or at least you don't want to. You have blinders on.
-
They are worse, because this death was a result of stupidity while the other crimes were the result of pure malicious intent. But you don't give two shits about those people because you can't politicize their deaths or at least you don't want to. You have blinders on.
not only do they not support his political agenda they counter it and this is the reason he doesnt give a shit.
To liberals the ends justify the means
-
He didn't know who or what he was shooting at. He admitted he shot four times at a silhouette
-
From the story:
Walker County Sheriff Steve Wilson has said he had no doubts that Hendrix felt threatened during the encounter. No charges have been filed and they are cooperating, but The Free Press reported that Wilson said a circuit district attorney may bring charges after reviewing the evidence. Wilson said the Georgia "stand-your-ground" law may apply to this case, the report said.
"In my personal opinion, I believe that he should have stayed inside the house," he said. "Did he violate any laws by exiting the house? No."
-
"In my personal opinion, I believe that he should have stayed inside the house," he said. "Did he violate any laws by exiting the house? No."
I'm pretty sure whether or not the dude violated any laws (by firing bullets into an unknown human being) will be decided by the DA/prosecutor, not the Sheriff.
Typically, the police are more of the "one less roaming old dude for us to deal with" mentality, and the people with law degrees focus more on the "Does a person who fears for their life choose to leave safety of home to engage target?", etc.
I still think the 911 call(s) will hold the answers. If the guy was truly scared, why leave safety and a locked door to go confront a stranger - particularly when the cops will be there any second? heck, he could have fired at a cop, right? He had no idea what the person looked like he was shooting at - suppose a cop on foot arrived from being parked in the wrong spot... dude just opened fire, huh?
Sorry, I dont typically roll with whatever the police say. let those who actually apply the law make that call. I hope they realize this guy left safety to run into a gun battle and fired without provocation at an unknown shape of a man, and charge him with something moderate. Not murder. but leave him alone, and next week, he's shooting at the mailman or lawn guy.
-
He didn't know who or what he was shooting at. He admitted he shot four times at a silhouette
you see this is the issue you libtards have with cases like this, you just try and make up your own facts.
He may not have known who but he knew what he was shooting at.
-
you see this is the issue you libtards have with cases like this, you just try and make up your own facts.
He may not have known who but he knew what he was shooting at.
Truth.
-
you see this is the issue you libtards have with cases like this, you just try and make up your own facts.
He may not have known who but he knew what he was shooting at.
yeah at a silhouette,how does he know its the same person hahahahahahaaha you retardicans are some fucking dumb :D :D :D :D :D
-
yeah at a silhouette,how does he know its the same person hahahahahahaaha you retardicans are some fucking dumb :D :D :D :D :D
LMFAO learn to read there brainchildyou see this is the issue you libtards have with cases like this, you just try and make up your own facts.
He may not have known who but he knew what he was shooting at.
Not knowing who he is shooting at is not knowing what he is shooting at moron
in your libtard rush to make this political you specifically stated he didnt know what he was shooting at...THIS IS FALSE hahahahha
-
He may not have known who but he knew what he was shooting at.
Not necessarily. Not sure if this is a "who" or a "what" but I'm pretty sure he didn't realize he was shooting at a 72-year old man.
And, actually, the story says the old man kept advancing and wouldn't respond to commands (or whatever), right? So the shooter could have thought he was dealing with a daywalker (lol), right? Does it say whether it was a headshot? lol
Wrong of me to make fun, I guess (but this is getbig so fuck it) but I actually think the idiot was scared. It did say in the article that the old man had 2 dogs with him. I think it's possible that the idiot shooter was more spooked than threatened. But who knows.
No matter what else happens, though, the shooter shouldn't be allowed to own a gun anymore.
-
Not necessarily. Not sure if this is a "who" or a "what" but I'm pretty sure he didn't realize he was shooting at a 72-year old man.
And, actually, the story says the old man kept advancing and wouldn't respond to commands (or whatever), right? So the shooter could have thought he was dealing with a daywalker (lol), right? Does it say whether it was a headshot? lol
Wrong of me to make fun, I guess (but this is getbig so fuck it) but I actually think the idiot was scared. It did say in the article that the old man had 2 dogs with him. I think it's possible that the idiot shooter was more spooked than threatened. But who knows.
No matter what else happens, though, the shooter shouldn't be allowed to own a gun anymore.
he did know he was shooting at a person, the details of who that person was not known.
BUT HE KNEW HE WAS SHOOTING AT A PERSON!!!
-
Everyone knows the rule.... you shoot someone if they're in your house. You don't run into the yard for a gun battle - in the dark, against who knows how many people, with so many unknown factors.
This guy should lose his guns simply because he's a fcking moron. Engaged in a shooting when he could have avoided it.
You point your rifle at the door, take a safe position, and call 911. And you wait.
You only enter the yard if you want a gun battle, which it appears the guy did. Ran outside and opened fire when he could have easily just stayed inside.
He could have just as easily been shooting at a cop. Or a chick that just escaped being kidnapped and was roofie'd and gagged. There's a hundred scenarios where a person could be unable to communicate, knocking and wandering . You let police show up with giant spotlights & bulletproof vests, and the ability to determine the facts without shooting blindly.
-
Still don't see how a case can be made that he was threatened.
I think this guy gets convicted.
-
LMFAO learn to read there brainchild
Not knowing who he is shooting at is not knowing what he is shooting at moron
in your libtard rush to make this political you specifically stated he didnt know what he was shooting at...THIS IS FALSE hahahahha
your the one that's making this political,typ retardican.hahahaha another moron standing up for a moron with a gun
-
Still don't see how a case can be made that he was threatened.
I think this guy gets convicted.
Honestly, I don't have a problem with some kind of legal repercussions. The man had no reason to shoot. But, I still don't see why so much concern is being expressed over this when other forms of crime are much more prevalent and causing greater harm to individuals and communities. The original poster is trying to politicize the idiocy of one person, as if it proves some point or indicates a trend.
-
your the one that's making this political,typ retardican.hahahaha another moron standing up for a moron with a gun
right....thats why it was posted on the political board and why you libtards have chimed in on it....
-
Honestly, I don't have a problem with some kind of legal repercussions. The man had no reason to shoot. But, I still don't see why so much concern is being expressed over this when other forms of crime are much more prevalent and causing greater harm to individuals and communities. The original poster is trying to politicize the idiocy of one person, as if it proves some point or indicates a trend.
I think because of the trayvon case it's a popular discussion topic especially with incidents where stand your ground can be applied.
-
I think because of the trayvon case it's a popular discussion topic especially with incidents where stand your ground can be applied.
zimmerman didnt use the stand your ground defense, i dont see the relation
-
right....thats why it was posted on the political board and why you libtards have chimed in on it....
this is getbig dummy,in case you havn't figured it out this isn't a real political board :D :D :D :D :D :D priceless. as soon as some retarded gun owner does something stupid the idiots flock around to defend him :D :D :D :D :D :D
-
this is getbig dummy,in case you havn't figured it out this isn't a real political board :D :D :D :D :D :D priceless. as soon as some retarded gun owner does something stupid the idiots flock around to defend him :D :D :D :D :D :D
And the other idiots flock to blow it out of proportion.
-
this is getbig dummy,in case you havn't figured it out this isn't a real political board :D :D :D :D :D :D priceless. as soon as some retarded gun owner does something stupid the idiots flock around to defend him :D :D :D :D :D :D
this isnt a real political board?
is that true Oz, beach, Hugo?
LMFAO keep going brain child, youre on a roll
-
zimmerman didnt use the stand your ground defense, i dont see the relation
It wasn't an issue?
-
this isnt a real political board?
is that true Oz, beach, Hugo?
LMFAO keep going brain child, youre on a roll
you have to ask? you don't know, hahahaha it's getbig, :D :D :D :D :D :D :D you thought this was a real political site :D :D :D :D your toooo much
-
It wasn't an issue?
It was made an issue by the likes of people like blacken and 240 but it was never an issue in regards to the trial
-
you have to ask? you don't know, hahahaha it's getbig, :D :D :D :D :D :D :D you thought this was a real political site :D :D :D :D your toooo much
I understand this is a bodybuilding forum, a forum with many boards
One of which is a political board, which you specifically said it was not.
Nice try brain child, again you're on a roll so keep it up lol
-
I understand this is a bodybuilding forum, a forum with many boards
One of which is a political board, which you specifically said it was not.
Nice try brain child, again you're on a roll so keep it up lol
hahahahahha your toooo dumb ,so if there was a board on here that said for Rhodes scholars only you would probably think that everyone on there was one :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
-
It wasn't an issue?
zimmerman's attorney announced on a thursday night they'd be using stand your gound.
over the next 2 days, there was a shitstorm of "oh, no way..." from everyone up to the author of the bill.
Sunday morning, he politely changed policy. Thanks to that, however, cawksuckers like Bloomberg started their anti-SYG bullshit.
-
zimmerman's attorney announced on a thursday night they'd be using stand your gound.
over the next 2 days, there was a shitstorm of "oh, no way..." from everyone up to the author of the bill.
Sunday morning, he politely changed policy. Thanks to that, however, cawksuckers like Bloomberg started their anti-SYG bullshit.
Are you insinuating that he forgo the pre-trial because of "uproar" from like-minded SYG supporters? bwahahaha. ::)
Or was it for tactical reasons to not give the prosecution a peak at their defense for the actual trial?
You know, you'd make for a great fictional author 240.
-
Are you insinuating that he forgo the pre-trial because of "uproar" from like-minded SYG supporters? bwahahaha. ::)
Or was it for tactical reasons to not give the prosecution a peak at their defense for the actual trial?
You know, you'd make for a great fictional author 240.
If it was to fool the prosecution, it would have lasted more than 48 hours lol. It was grasping at straws.
anyway, this case has nothing to do with stand your ground - this is CASTLE DOCTRINE. He will argue his yard was part of the house. He *could* go with feared for life, but it's very thin, particuarly because if he feared that much, he would have waited longer for police.
-
If it was to fool the prosecution, it would have lasted more than 48 hours lol. It was grasping at straws.
anyway, this case has nothing to do with stand your ground - this is CASTLE DOCTRINE. He will argue his yard was part of the house. He *could* go with feared for life, but it's very thin, particuarly because if he feared that much, he would have waited longer for police.
You just can't argue with this. This case is so much more clear cut than the Trayvon case. He should have retreated into his house. My brother, who is a cop, said don't shoot in a situation like this until they are in or are attemping to gain entry into your home.
Now, does the guy deserve a life sentence, probably not. I don't think this was a malicious act of violence. He probably felt scared and threatened and made poor choices out of fear. He didn't know who was outside or if there were others. Negligent homicide at the most.
-
So basically....
SYG won't likely be used and the thread title is shit.
Why am i not surprised?
-
You just can't argue with this. This case is so much more clear cut than the Trayvon case. He should have retreated into his house. My brother, who is a cop, said don't shoot in a situation like this until they are in or are attemping to gain entry into your home.
Now, does the guy deserve a life sentence, probably not. I don't think this was a malicious act of violence. He probably felt scared and threatened and made poor choices out of fear. He didn't know who was outside or if there were others. Negligent homicide at the most.
He probably felt anger, to be honest.
He called 911 and had the sense to wait 10 minutes. My guess is that he decided, after ten minutes, to handle things on his own. For 600 seconds, he KNEW the right thing to do was to stay inside. That makes it worse on him. Someone knocks, you walk outside, and there's a confrontation, it's just your word against a dead man. But someone knocks, you call 911 in fear, then you count to 600 and run out the door, guns blazing.. what changed? You were less scared (no good for a legal shoot) or you were angry and impatient and wanted to get this party started. I dont know any other reason you'd leave security of home, with police on the way, when you've already shown the good judgment to wait ten minutes.
I cant wait for the 911 calls... I bet he called repeatedly and I bet he's in the background saying things like "they'd better hurry, or I'm going to do this myself..." Of course it's natural to be angry when someone is in "your space" like your yard... but you have to restrain yourself, lay on the ground with weapon, face the door, and just wait it out.
-
You just can't argue with this. This case is so much more clear cut than the Trayvon case. He should have retreated into his house. My brother, who is a cop, said don't shoot in a situation like this until they are in or are attemping to gain entry into your home.
Now, does the guy deserve a life sentence, probably not. I don't think this was a malicious act of violence. He probably felt scared and threatened and made poor choices out of fear. He didn't know who was outside or if there were others. Negligent homicide at the most.
You mean like this?
"Police said Westbrook had been walking around in the cold for hours when he went to Hendrix's home and began ringing the doorbell and jiggling the front door handle."
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/wandering-man-alzheimer-mistaken-burglar-shot-killed-article-1.1532714#ixzz2mWcM6wkc
-
"Police said Westbrook had been walking around in the cold for hours when he went to Hendrix's home and began ringing the doorbell and jiggling the front door handle."
You still can't shoot someone for jiggling your door handle. That's why that have 911. Yes, you can be very mad or scared they are jiggling your door handle. But it'd been ten minutes, and the old senile person was unable to get in, so he had gone back into the yard where he was shot.
beach bum, human life is much more valuable than just to run out there shooting at something which jiiggled your door handle. You lay down, you call 911, you point gun at door, and until he actually enters, you don't do a thing. Nothing.
He had the good sense to call 911. He had the good sense to wait ten minutes. I think at that point, he lost his cool, let his emotions get the best of him. He knew whoever was out there wasn't coming in the door, he knew his life wasn't at risk from that. He just wanted to go 'reclaim' his yard.
I think if the confrontation happened immediately, it'd be an easy win for the shooter. The fact he waited ten minutes, THEN went out firing bullets into an unknown situation, well, that ain't so good. By the way, OZ is right, this isn't stand your ground, not one bit. Fear for life or castle doctrine.
I dont know what GA laws are on castle doctrine, but in FL, I sure cannot go shoot a person cause they're in my yard. no way. Home & inside car, that's it! And SYG can't apply as the shooter was the one doing the advancing - old man had already left porch, showing retreat.
You cannot shoot someone for being in your yard. Understand?
-
You don't know what the heck you're talking about.
-
Why was my post deleted? ???
I see 24KT/JaguarEnterprises cried to the mods again who caved in and deleted my post for no reason.
Anyway, the number one killer of black men are black men. Why aren't we discussing this instead?
-
You don't know what the heck you're talking about.
I understand the value of human life. I'm a driven, often emotional and angry dude lol. No dout, I get frustrated easily when contronted with something I consider to be total bullshit.
But there's a switch you have to hit, when danger, life/death, guns & violence come into play. You have to TURN OFF your emotions. Anger that some dude is violating your yard. Fear they might be out there planning something. Frustration the police are taking too long to arrive.
This dude didn't have the ability to do this for 601 seconds. He had a timer on how long he could control himself with a weapon. He couldn't make it 11 minutes under that kind of pressure, and he exploded with 4 bullets into an old man who didn't touch him.
This shooter has proven he doesn't have the emotional capacity to manage the use of firearms. At the very least, convict him of the smallest possible felony which cannot be expunged, so he can never own/use a firearm again.
This situation could have been any number of things. Maybe old man was having a stroke, couldn't talk, and ran from next door to have them call 911. Yes, he jiggled door handle. He didn't put his foot through the window. This shooter can't control his emotions. You have to turn them off if you're going to carry a gun. Swallow your fear and pride, hold your gun, and WAIT. That's it.
-
I understand the value of human life. I'm a driven, often emotional and angry dude lol. No dout, I get frustrated easily when contronted with something I consider to be total bullshit.
But there's a switch you have to hit, when danger, life/death, guns & violence come into play. You have to TURN OFF your emotions. Anger that some dude is violating your yard. Fear they might be out there planning something. Frustration the police are taking too long to arrive.
This dude didn't have the ability to do this for 601 seconds. He had a timer on how long he could control himself with a weapon. He couldn't make it 11 minutes under that kind of pressure, and he exploded with 4 bullets into an old man who didn't touch him.
This shooter has proven he doesn't have the emotional capacity to manage the use of firearms. At the very least, convict him of the smallest possible felony which cannot be expunged, so he can never own/use a firearm again.
This situation could have been any number of things. Maybe old man was having a stroke, couldn't talk, and ran from next door to have them call 911. Yes, he jiggled door handle. He didn't put his foot through the window. This shooter can't control his emotions. You have to turn them off if you're going to carry a gun. Swallow your fear and pride, hold your gun, and WAIT. That's it.
The difference between us is I look at the facts and form an opinion. You just flat out make stuff up. What I read from that story sounds like a tragic mistake. And I didn't have to invent stuff to form that opinion (like him running out into his yard and gunning someone down because he was angry). ::)
-
Stand your ground is a just and valid law, and only whiney blacks upset that people can actually defend themselves from their ridiculous crime rate hate it.
-
SUV hits van in Nevada, killing 5 members of L.A.-area family
March 30, 2013|By Ari Bloomekatz
just another tragic mistake ::)
Five members of a Southern California family -- a man, his teenage daughter, and her aunt and two uncles -- were killed early Saturday in southeastern Nevada when a drunk-driving suspect crashed into the back of their Chevy Astro van on Interstate 15, authorities said.
Loy Hixson of the Nevada Highway Patrol said 18-year-old Jean Soriano was driving a Dodge Durango on I-15 about 30 miles south of Mesquite around 3 a.m. when he struck the back of the Astro - which was carrying seven members of the same family.
-
The difference between us is I look at the facts and form an opinion. You just flat out make stuff up. What I read from that story sounds like a tragic mistake. And I didn't have to invent stuff to form that opinion (like him running out into his yard and gunning someone down because he was angry). ::)
If it happened instantly, we could chalk it up to being a tragic mistake. Stumbled into the old man, shots fired out of fear.
But he called 911 and waited ten minutes. He KNEW it was a scary threat outside, and he had the sense to call police.
Knowingly opening the door to fire on someone in your yard is NOT a tragic mistake. it's murder.
-
SUV hits van in Nevada, killing 5 members of L.A.-area family
March 30, 2013|By Ari Bloomekatz
Email
Share
just another tragic mistake ::)
Five members of a Southern California family -- a man, his teenage daughter, and her aunt and two uncles -- were killed early Saturday in southeastern Nevada when a drunk-driving suspect crashed into the back of their Chevy Astro van on Interstate 15, authorities said.
Loy Hixson of the Nevada Highway Patrol said 18-year-old Jean Soriano was driving a Dodge Durango on I-15 about 30 miles south of Mesquite around 3 a.m. when he struck the back of the Astro - which was carrying seven members of the same family.
Why are you posting this story from March that has nothing do with a shooting?
-
Why are you posting this story from March that has nothing do with a shooting?
this is just another tragic mistake,right ??? according to you
-
this is just another tragic mistake,right ??? according to you
Drunk driving is never a mistake. It's a crime.
This story has nothing to with the shooting in Georgia.
-
this is just another tragic mistake,right ??? according to you
this shooting is a result of a man being unable to control his anger, frustration and fear for more than 10 minutes.
There's no mistake here.
-
this shooting is a result of a man being unable to control his anger, frustration and fear for more than 10 minutes.
There's no mistake here.
this is what you get when you have a bunch of untrained idiots running aroung with guns
-
this is what you get when you have a bunch of untrained idiots running aroung with guns
it's really more about mental training.
Some people think they can just chalk up firing 4 rounds into an unknown person when they dont have to as a mistake.
They need to understand the consequences of their actions. You dont shoot unless it's a LAST RESORT.
-
this is what you get when you have a bunch of untrained idiots running aroung with guns
What you get is street crime.
-
What you get is street crime.
all he had to do was wait in the house with the doors locked with his gun in his hand and if the door got broke open all he had to do was shot the person.but no ,he had his metal courage in his hand and he was going to show that 72 year old man a thing or two.now look where it got him
-
So basically....
SYG won't likely be used and the thread title is shit.
Why am i not surprised?
I don't think this has anything to do with stand your ground. Assuming Georgia has traditional self defense, the issue is whether he had a reasonable belief he was going to suffer serious injury or death.
Also, the fact the elderly man wasn't actually a threat doesn't mean the shooter didn't have a reasonable belief he was in danger. The sheriff said he has no doubt the guy was afraid. And based on what I read, I agree.
Someone tries to open your door at 4 in the morning and fails to respond to verbal commands, you do what you believe is necessary to protect yourself and family.
Will be interesting to see if a grand jury indicts him, assuming it gets that far.
-
all he had to do was wait in the house with the doors locked with his gun in his hand and if the door got broke open all he had to do was shot the person.but no ,he had his metal courage in his hand and he was going to show that 72 year old man a thing or two.now look where it got him
Hahah yesterday he didn't know who or what he was shooting at and now he was he'll bent on showing a 72 year old man a thing or two...
The emotion and desperation in your post is so thick you can almost hear you crying as you read it
-
all he had to do was wait in the house with the doors locked with his gun in his hand and if the door got broke open all he had to do was shot the person.but no ,he had his metal courage in his hand and he was going to show that 72 year old man a thing or two.now look where it got him
Yes but how is this relevant to anything? This is one person making a bad decision. Not one shred of evidence that maliciousness was involved at all. Again, you seem pretty broken up over this but completely oblivious to other more pressing crime issues.
-
Hahah yesterday he didn't know who or what he was shooting at and now he was he'll bent on showing a 72 year old man a thing or two...
The emotion and desperation in your post is so thick you can almost hear you crying as you read it
What your seeing is the formation of a narrative driven by personal bias and political ideology.
-
Hahah yesterday he didn't know who or what he was shooting at and now he was he'll bent on showing a 72 year old man a thing or two...
The emotion and desperation in your post is so thick you can almost hear you crying as you read it
I'm writing what I know after the fact :D :D :D :D :D :D :D you have to be one of the dumbest fucks on this political board :D :D :D :D
-
What your seeing is the formation of a narrative driven by personal bias and political ideology.
Spot on sir, yet another astute post
-
Someone tries to open your door at 4 in the morning and fails to respond to verbal commands, you do what you believe is necessary to protect yourself and family.
You cannot shoot someone juggling your door handle. You cannot. You're safe inside. Castle doctrine doesn't matter until dude steps inside.
Gonna be tough to sell "I feared for my life so I unlocked the door with police already on the way and headed outside shooting". Really tough. He had the brains to wait ten minutes... he got impatient.
-
What your seeing is the formation of a narrative driven by personal bias and political ideology.
I could say the same for yours and dumb dumbs post ;D
-
A lot of twinks melting on this thread.
-
A lot of twinks melting on this thread.
-
I could say the same for yours and dumb dumbs post ;D
Actually no, archer's posts are reasonable, evidence based assessments devoid of emotion, while yours are silly, emotional politically-driven nonsense.
-
Some old guy with Alzheimer felt threatened and shot someone. He doesn't have all his mental faculties. This doesn't mean anything.
I can see where this is evidence based assessments :D :D
-
Yes but how is this relevant to anything? This is one person making a bad decision. Not one shred of evidence that maliciousness was involved at all. Again, you seem pretty broken up over this but completely oblivious to other more pressing crime issues.
No evidence of maliciousness. But there is evidence of a CHANGE OF HEART during that confrontation.
Ten minutes of doing the right thing, then SOMETHING agitated him into UNLOCKING THE DOOR and going into the darkness with a weapon.
It could have been a stroke victim. A crime victim with a knot on head and/or broken jaw. He had no idea what he was shooting.
I remember once in the trailer park, this crack head came into the screen room, tried jiggling the door, knocking, pounding, pulling, asking for someone, demanding he come out. My brother and I were home. I had twin glocks pointed 12 inches from the door head level, my brother had a mossberg shotty at torso level.
But we didn't OPEN the door. We were safe in our home. Any one comes THRU the door, well, you can imagine how that story ends, right? But because he never entered our home, we repressed any anger and frustration we had - and told him to get outta here, wrong house, police are on their way. He ran away and never came back.
That's how you handle it (although today I'd have better position behind cover, of course). Dude tried to get in. He was a junkie punk intent on bad things. But no way did we bring the party to him. You avoid shooting people ANYTIME YOU CAN. You don't unlock safety and run into the darkness firing.
That shooter shouldn't own guns. He's shown he cannot control his emotions with them.
-
No evidence of maliciousness. But there is evidence of a CHANGE OF HEART during that confrontation.
Ten minutes of doing the right thing, then SOMETHING agitated him into UNLOCKING THE DOOR and going into the darkness with a weapon.
It could have been a stroke victim. A crime victim with a knot on head and/or broken jaw. He had no idea what he was shooting.
I remember once in the trailer park, this crack head came into the screen room, tried jiggling the door, knocking, pounding, pulling, asking for someone, demanding he come out. My brother and I were home. I had twin glocks pointed 12 inches from the door head level, my brother had a mossberg shotty at torso level.
But we didn't OPEN the door. We were safe in our home. Any one comes THRU the door, well, you can imagine how that story ends, right? But because he never entered our home, we repressed any anger and frustration we had - and told him to get outta here, wrong house, police are on their way. He ran away and never came back.
That's how you handle it (although today I'd have better position behind cover, of course). Dude tried to get in. He was a junkie punk intent on bad things. But no way did we bring the party to him. You avoid shooting people ANYTIME YOU CAN. You don't unlock safety and run into the darkness firing.
That shooter shouldn't own guns. He's shown he cannot control his emotions with them.
No one is arguing he didn't demonstrate bad judgement by leaving his house but that person choice doesn't say anything about gun laws, gun owners or guns themselves. It doesn't prove that gun owners are inherently dangerous or that gun laws are to laxs, it only proves this one person had poor judgement.
-
Classic Monday Morning Quarterbacking.
-
No one is arguing he didn't demonstrate bad judgement by leaving his house but that person choice doesn't say anything about gun laws, gun owners or guns themselves. It doesn't prove that gun owners are inherently dangerous or that gun laws are to laxs, it only proves this one person had poor judgement.
Nope, it just proves this ONE gun owner is too dangerous to own a gun. Most gun owners carry them (or keep at home) and avoid trouble, not run into it.
Classic Monday Morning Quarterbacking.
Disagree... Most of us wouldn't have unlocked the door, with a person on porch jiggling door, and proceeded into the darkness with a gun, instead of letting the police handle it, knowing they were on their way.
This is common sense for most gun owners... we want NO PART of a confusing battle with a stranger in the dark with a gun involved. We know TODAY what we would do if someone jiggled our handle - we sure as shit don't go opening that door LOL.
It's not like we're dissecting what shot to take or other tactics - this is something as simple as "DONT OPEN THE DOOR" lol. Most people with guns already possess the common sense not to open the door and exit home into a potentially dangerous situation.
-
Nope, it just proves this ONE gun owner is too dangerous to own a gun. Most gun owners carry them (or keep at home) and avoid trouble, not run into it.
Disagree... Most of us wouldn't have unlocked the door, with a person on porch jiggling door, and proceeded into the darkness with a gun, instead of letting the police handle it, knowing they were on their way.
This is common sense for most gun owners... we want NO PART of a confusing battle with a stranger in the dark with a gun involved. We know TODAY what we would do if someone jiggled our handle - we sure as shit don't go opening that door LOL.
It's not like we're dissecting what shot to take or other tactics - this is something as simple as "DONT OPEN THE DOOR" lol. Most people with guns already possess the common sense not to open the door and exit home into a potentially dangerous situation.
Don't try and act like you speak for all gun owners or the "reasonable" gun owner. You don't. I remember you mentioning on the board how you supposedly approached an unfamiliar car in your neighborhood with your hand on your gun to question the people in the car. Exactly what a reasonable, responsible gun owner would do. ::)
-
Don't try and act like you speak for all gun owners or the "reasonable" gun owner. You don't. I remember you mentioning on the board how you supposedly approached an unfamiliar car in your neighborhood with your hand on your gun to question the people in the car. Exactly what a reasonable, responsible gun owner would do. ::)
hahah yup 240 used to brag about how him and his merry band of trailer park militia men would chase out unwanted individuals armed to the teeth.
Now he supposedly was a scared little shit who wouldnt leave his trailer....
-
Why was my post deleted? ???
I see 24KT/JaguarEnterprises cried to the mods again who caved in and deleted my post for no reason.
Anyway, the number one killer of black men are black men. Why aren't we discussing this instead?
I had nothing to do with your post being deleted.
This is my first visit back to this thread since I started it.
Why don't you ask the mods why they deleted it.
Both the shooter and the elderly victim are white.
-
You still can't shoot someone for jiggling your door handle. That's why that have 911. Yes, you can be very mad or scared they are jiggling your door handle. But it'd been ten minutes, and the old senile person was unable to get in, so he had gone back into the yard where he was shot.
beach bum, human life is much more valuable than just to run out there shooting at something which jiiggled your door handle. You lay down, you call 911, you point gun at door, and until he actually enters, you don't do a thing. Nothing.
He had the good sense to call 911. He had the good sense to wait ten minutes. I think at that point, he lost his cool, let his emotions get the best of him. He knew whoever was out there wasn't coming in the door, he knew his life wasn't at risk from that. He just wanted to go 'reclaim' his yard.
I think if the confrontation happened immediately, it'd be an easy win for the shooter. The fact he waited ten minutes, THEN went out firing bullets into an unknown situation, well, that ain't so good. By the way, OZ is right, this isn't stand your ground, not one bit. Fear for life or castle doctrine.
I dont know what GA laws are on castle doctrine, but in FL, I sure cannot go shoot a person cause they're in my yard. no way. Home & inside car, that's it! And SYG can't apply as the shooter was the one doing the advancing - old man had already left porch, showing retreat.
You cannot shoot someone for being in your yard. Understand?
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.
-
His girlfriend was still on the phone with the 911 operator when the shooting took place.
My understanding is that Hendrix has now been charged for the shooting.
that 911 call will tell it all. I'm betting it's not "I'm so scared, I'd better confront him!"
it's more likely (in my guess), "Fck that, if they're gonna take all night, I'm gonna go get this guy myself..." before heading outside.
-
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.
It wasn't earlier in the day. It was 2:30 a.m.
Where are you getting the information that he has already been charged?
Georgia prosecutors say they are trying to determine whether to charge a homeowner with a crime after he shot an elderly Alzheimers patient as the man was trying to get into his house during the middle of the night.
The man who fired the shot had moved into the neighborhood just days earlier, police said. The victim had been wandering in the cold for hours with his two dogs, and after he was shot one of his dogs laid across his body protectively and had to be pried away by animal control.
In the coming weeks, authorities from the Walker County District Attorney's and sheriff's offices will meet to determine whether to file charges against Joe Hendrix, 34, who fatally shot Ronald Westbrook, 72, on Nov. 27.
. . .
http://abcnews.go.com/US/da-mulls-shooting-alzheimers-patient-enter-home/story?id=21080904
-
Mute Air Force Vet Ronald Westbrook, With Advanced Alzheimer's...
Unreal... what a clown, running into a situation with guns blazing, having zero information on the situation.
Dude deserves to be locked up just for being stupid.
-
tough call. horrible accident? or idiot with a gun? i'm leaning towards idiot with a gun. charge his ass.
-
Mute Air Force Vet Ronald Westbrook, With Advanced Alzheimer's...
Unreal... what a clown, running into a situation with guns blazing, having zero information on the situation.
Dude deserves to be locked up just for being stupid.
I have to agree. He should, and i think he will be charged.
Can anyone here argue that he had justifiable reasons to feel life threatened?
-
I have to agree. He should, and i think he will be charged.
Can anyone here argue that he had justifiable reasons to feel life threatened?
According to the first article I posted, "Georgia's self-defense law generally allows a person to use force when they have reason to believe they are under a physical threat."
Did he have a reasonable belief that he was under a physical threat? I say yes. He was new to the neighborhood. He thinks someone is trying to break into his house. It's 4 a.m. The person is trying to open his door. The person is on his property and fails to respond to commands while walking towards him, on his property. Sounds like a physical threat to me.
-
I have to agree. He should, and i think he will be charged.
Can anyone here argue that he had justifiable reasons to feel life threatened?
He was inside the house, safely locked door, police on the way, staying put for 10 minutes.
SOMETHING motivated him to leave safety and put himself into the confusing situation outside. His woman was on phone with 911, he KNEW they would be there soon.
This SOMETHING... was it frustration with police taking so long? If so, that's very bad for him. The 911 tapes tell all... have they been released yet? Whatever he said to wife/police the moment before he opened that door.
let's just be clear... if he said something along the lines of "Oh, the heck with it, they're taking too long, I'm handling this myself..." and shots rang out 5 seconds later lol.... well, his goose is cooked and anyone who still defends that as a "tragic mistake", well... lol
-
Did he have a reasonable belief that he was under a physical threat? I say yes. He was new to the neighborhood. He thinks someone is trying to break into his house. It's 4 a.m. The person is trying to open his door. The person is on his property and fails to respond to commands while walking towards him, on his property. Sounds like a physical threat to me.
First let's eliminate stand your ground. Completely nothing to do with this.
next let's eliminate castle doctrine. Doesn't apply to yards.
The only defense here is "i feared for my life". Good luck selling that one.
-
First let's eliminate stand your ground. Completely nothing to do with this.
next let's eliminate castle doctrine. Doesn't apply to yards.
The only defense here is "i feared for my life". Good luck selling that one.
He didn't have to fear for his life. But don't let the facts get in the way. You never do.
-
According to the first article I posted, "Georgia's self-defense law generally allows a person to use force when they have reason to believe they are under a physical threat."
Did he have a reasonable belief that he was under a physical threat? I say yes. He was new to the neighborhood. He thinks someone is trying to break into his house. It's 4 a.m. The person is trying to open his door. The person is on his property and fails to respond to commands while walking towards him, on his property. Sounds like a physical threat to me.
To use "Deadly Force" under physical threat? I don't think so. Its not that simple. So if i push someone for bumping into me can he justifiably shoot me?
I don't think it been establish he was under any kind of physical threat:
He was new to the neighborhood
Irrelevant
He thinks someone is trying to break into his house. The person is trying to open his door.
Other than ringing the door bell and turning the door knob what else was this guy doing?
Was he trying to pick the lock? NO.
Was there attempted forced entry? NO.
Was he trying to gain entrance else where like a window? NO.
It's 4 a.m.
Still irrelevant
The person is on his property and fails to respond to commands while walking towards him, on his property.
Was he aggressively coming at him? did he have a weapon? Were his hands in a fist? where they raised?
Doesn't sound at all like a physical threat.
Also, he left the "safety" of his house that wasn't violated and shot the man who had NO weapon and wasn't coming at him in an aggressive fashion
-
To use "Deadly Force" under physical threat? I don't think so. So if i push someone for bumping into me can he justifiably shoot him? Its not simple.
I don't think it be establish he was under any kind of physical threat:Irrelevant
Other than ringing the door bell and turning the door knob what else was this guy doing?
Was he trying to pick the lock? NO.
Was there attempted forced entry? NO.
Was he trying to gain entrance else where like a window? NO.
Still irrelevant
Was he aggressively coming at him? did he have a weapon? Were his hands in a fist? where they raised?
Doesn't sound at all like a physical threat.
Someone pushing you is irrelevant. That's not what happened.
Being new to the neighborhood is relevant. He probably didn't know all of his neighbors. He probably didn't know there was someone with Alzheimer's living nearby. I think there is much less of a comfort level about your surroundings when you move to a new place. That all factors into his mindset.
Someone trying to open your door at 4 a.m. sounds like forced entry to me.
The fact it was 4 a.m. is relevant. A person is much more likely to be fearful at 4 a.m., being woken from their sleep, than 9 a.m. or 4 p.m.
What does "aggressively coming at him mean"? I think the fact someone who was trying to open your door at 4 a.m. is on your property walking towards you and not responding to commands is being "aggressive."
All of the factors, when considered together, sound like a threat to me.
-
Being new to the neighborhood is relevant. He probably didn't know all of his neighbors.
Disagree... you can drop most in the middle of Georgia or Alaska or China... and they'll have the common sense not to leave safety for an ELECTIVE confrontation, and shooting into an unknown shadow.
I want the 911 tapes... leaving safety with a gun to face down an unknown - when police were en route - is just asinine. Dude wanted trigger time. I bet there's anger in his voice as he heads out - and yeah, I'm sure just like with zimmerman, ppl will defend it, saying the anger had nothing to do with his mindset lol...
-
Someone pushing you is irrelevant. That's not what happened.
Being new to the neighborhood is relevant. He probably didn't know all of his neighbors. He probably didn't know there was someone with Alzheimer's living nearby. I think there is much less of a comfort level about your surroundings when you move to a new place. That all factors into his mindset.
So a person's mind set is a factor?
So new people in neighborhoods have more justification for shooting people than a person who has lived there a while?
I don't think so.
Someone trying to open your door at 4 a.m. sounds like forced entry to me.
There is a difference between turning a door knob to gain entry versus turning a knob to force entry. If i knock on your door and turn your door knob am i guilty of attempted B & E? I don't think so in ANY state in the US.
What does "aggressively coming at him mean"? I think the fact someone who was trying to open your door at 4 a.m. is on your property walking towards you and not responding to commands is being "aggressive."
All of the factors, when considered together, sound like a threat to me.
You seem to be arguing that he "felt" physically threatened. Feelings don't determine danger when it comes to justifiable cause to use deadly force in defense of being physically threatened. If so, I can go to Georgia, walk down a street and if someone threatens me i can shoot them justifiably?
I am no lawyer, but it would seem to me they would have to prove that he was in fact physically threaten NOT the he felt threatened.
Here are the facts:
1. NO forced attempted entry (unless of course the law says turning a door knob is attempted B&E)
2. No weapon on victim, nor any statement be shooter that he thought victim had weapon
3. NO aggressive behavior (unless of course walking towards someone in any situation is considered aggressive)
4. He left his house (where he was safe at that moment) and shot the guy.
No case what so ever here for being physically threatened.
-
So a person's mind set is a factor?
So new people in neighborhoods have more justification for shooting people than a person who has lived there a while?
I don't think so.
There is a difference between turning a door knob to gain entry versus turning a knob to force entry. If i knock on your door and turn your door knob am i guilty of attempted B & E? I don't think so in ANY state in the US.
You seem to be arguing that he "felt" physically threatened. Feelings don't determine danger when it comes to justifiable cause to use deadly force in defense of being physically threatened. If so, I can go to Georgia, walk down a street and if someone threatens me i can shoot them justifiably?
I am no lawyer, but it would seem to me they would have to prove that he was in fact physically threaten NOT the he felt threatened.
Here are the facts:
1. NO forced attempted entry (unless of course the law says turning a door knob is attempted B&E)
2. No weapon on victim, nor any statement be shooter that he thought victim had weapon
3. NO aggressive behavior (unless of course walking towards someone in any situation is considered aggressive)
4. He left his house (where he was safe at that moment) and shot the guy.
No case what so ever here for being physically threatened.
His mindset/feeling is all that matters at the end of the day. Fear is a mindset/feeling. To determine whether his fear was reasonable requires looking at all of the other facts, which I've already mentioned. We just disagree on how those facts are characterized and what they mean.
What you're doing is trying to isolate each individual fact to see whether that fact alone resulted in a reasonable belief that he was under a physical threat. I don't think that's the proper way to look at the situation. You have to look at the facts as a whole and form an opinion. At least that's the way I do it.
I didn't say new people have more of a justification to shoot people. I said they're less likely to be familiar with their surroundings. If he lived in the neighborhood for several years, and the old guy was a wanderer, it's more likely he would have known that. Also, being new to the neighborhood makes you less uncertain about things like safety. That fact alone doesn't justify a shooting. It's just part of the analysis.
Whether the elderly man was actually guilty of breaking and entering isn't the issue. It's the fact he was trying to open someone's door at 4 a.m. I don't think it's reasonable to expect everyone to call 911 and sit back and do nothing at 4 in the morning when someone is trying to enter your home. Sounds like he was trying to protect his fiancee.
But here are the facts as I've read them:
1. Someone was awoken at 4 a.m. by someone trying to illegally enter his home. Whether it was actually illegal is irrelevant, because the homeowner (or renter, whatever he was) had no idea the man trying to enter his home at that hour was ill. I think most reasonable people would believe someone trying to enter your home at 4 a.m. has bad intentions.
2. He called 911, which was the right thing to do.
3. He opened his door and exited. Putting on my MMQB hat, I say he should have stayed in the house. But as the police said: "In my personal opinion, I believe that he should have stayed inside the house," he said. "Did he violate any laws by exiting the house? No."
4. He didn't immediately shoot the guy. He gave several commands. Not sure what those were, but I suspect they were in the nature of "get off my property" and "stop." The guy continued to walk towards him.
5. "Walker County Sheriff Steve Wilson has said he had no doubts that Hendrix felt threatened during the encounter." I agree, for the reasons I've already stated.
-
It wasn't earlier in the day. It was 2:30 a.m.
The shooting occured at 2:30am, HOWEVER, it was earlier in the day that the elderly man had his encounter with the police officer who suggested he go home because he was dressed inappropriately for the weather.
Not that I'm casting blame on the officer he encountered earlier in the day, ...but if you see an elderly man, shuffling around ON FOOT, not dressed properly for the weather, carrying a bunch of mail, and stating he lived 5 miles away, ...wouldn't that be a bit of a clue that something was askew?
I can recall another guy who encountered police while carrying 2 pieces of mail (in his possessions) belonging to someone else, and he ended up beaten, tasered, and crying for his Daddy before his life was ended, ...but then again, he didn't belong to a certain demographic that gets treated with kindness & courtesy by police officers.
It's too bad Mr. Westbrook was an elderly white middle class man from the suburbs. If he wasn't, the cop he encountered might have done a stop & frisk, detained him and inadvertently saved his life. :-\
Where are you getting the information that he has already been charged?
Georgia prosecutors say they are trying to determine whether to charge a homeowner with a crime after he shot an elderly Alzheimers patient as the man was trying to get into his house during the middle of the night.
The man who fired the shot had moved into the neighborhood just days earlier, police said. The victim had been wandering in the cold for hours with his two dogs, and after he was shot one of his dogs laid across his body protectively and had to be pried away by animal control.
In the coming weeks, authorities from the Walker County District Attorney's and sheriff's offices will meet to determine whether to file charges against Joe Hendrix, 34, who fatally shot Ronald Westbrook, 72, on Nov. 27.
. . .
http://abcnews.go.com/US/da-mulls-shooting-alzheimers-patient-enter-home/story?id=21080904
I do not remember exactly which source it was, however, it stated that he was indeed being charged. It was a delayed decision to lay the charges, however, they finally concluded it was appropriate.
The widow has stated she didn't think charges were warranted, however, it was not her call to make.
-
that 911 call will tell it all. I'm betting it's not "I'm so scared, I'd better confront him!"
it's more likely (in my guess), "Fck that, if they're gonna take all night, I'm gonna go get this guy myself..." before heading outside.
The police stated they definitely believed the girlfriend was in fear for her life, ...but she wasn't the one who pulled the trigger.
He had waited 10 mins already... all the while there was constant contact with 911 operators.
The police were approx. 6 minutes out.
For me, what I can't get past is the fact that he shot at a shadow. A freaking silhouette!!! ?!
Whatever happened to "Don't fire until you can see the whites of their eyes?" so sad. :'(
-
His mindset/feeling is all that matters at the end of the day. Fear is a mindset/feeling.
Feelings are subjective. Just because a person "feels" they are threatened doesn't mean they are and if you use "feeling" as the basis of determining fear as justification for using deadly force you are opening the door to justifiable violence for all kinds of crazy unnecessary killing.
To determine whether his fear was reasonable requires looking at all of the other facts, which I've already mentioned. We just disagree on how those facts are characterized and what they mean.
The difference is you are using "feeling" and or "perception" as the basis for your conclusions. Which is faulty because it can't be applied universally to other similar or dissimilar situations. I am using logic and facts. For example: A man walks up to a door knocks on it and turns the handle. Is that attempted B & E? No. Not in any state. But if a man knocks on the door then proceeds to try and pick the lock it is Attempted B & E in any state. Its doesn't matter if the occupants of that house are home or not, 4am in the morning or new tot he neighbor hood. Nor does it matter whether or not the occupants felt their house was being broken into. If he uses a tool to B & E it is, if he simply turns the knob its not. Logic: the line of attempted B & E, Fact: He only turned the knob.
What you're doing is trying to isolate each individual fact to see whether that fact alone resulted in a reasonable belief that he was under a physical threat. I don't think that's the proper way to look at the situation. You have to look at the facts as a whole and form an opinion. At least that's the way I do it.
I am and I am not. Each part leads to another. If one part does not indicate he was in danger and then next part doesn't and then part after that doesn't and so on, how can you ever say he was in danger?
I didn't say new people have more of a justification to shoot people. I said they're less likely to be familiar with their surroundings. If he lived in the neighborhood for several years, and the old guy was a wanderer, it's more likely he would have known that. Also, being new to the neighborhood makes you less uncertain about things like safety. That fact alone doesn't justify a shooting. It's just part of the analysis.
Its only becomes part of it if you are using a "feeling" as the basis for justification instead of the actual fact of whether or not he was at anytime in physical danger based on what was known to him which he never was.
Whether the elderly man was actually guilty of breaking and entering isn't the issue. It's the fact he was trying to open someone's door at 4 a.m. I don't think it's reasonable to expect everyone to call 911 and sit back and do nothing at 4 in the morning when someone is trying to enter your home. Sounds like he was trying to protect his fiancee.
It is an issue because at some point the man stopped trying to open the door and did not continue and or evolve his attempts by using other means such as a crow bar to gain entry. Therefore it is what it is. A man walking up to a door, and turning the knob and some point he stops and walks away into the yard where the man inside comes out and murders him. (That will be in my dramatic prosecution opening statements ;D)
But here are the facts as I've read them:
1. Someone was awoken at 4 a.m. by someone trying to illegally enter his home. Whether it was actually illegal is irrelevant, because the homeowner (or renter, whatever he was) had no idea the man trying to enter his home at that hour was ill. I think most reasonable people would believe someone trying to enter your home at 4 a.m. has bad intentions.
2. He called 911, which was the right thing to do.
3. He opened his door and exited. Putting on my MMQB hat, I say he should have stayed in the house. But as the police said: "In my personal opinion, I believe that he should have stayed inside the house," he said. "Did he violate any laws by exiting the house? No."
I don't know why everyone keeps replaying this comment: "Did he violate any laws by exiting the house? No." That's not the issue here. Him shooting him is. Strange.
4. He didn't immediately shoot the guy. He gave several commands. Not sure what those were, but I suspect they were in the nature of "get off my property" and "stop." The guy continued to walk towards him.
He could have fired warning shoots. Instead, he, without reasonable cause and or without impending physical harm shot and murdered the man in cold blood. (opening comments ;D)
5. "Walker County Sheriff Steve Wilson has said he had no doubts that Hendrix felt threatened during the encounter." I agree, for the reasons I've already stated.
This is why i bring comparisons like walking down the street and someone pushing me. It's about the "degree" of being threatened based on facts not feelings.
I should add: No way a jury is not going to convict him of at least involuntary manslaughter, probably voluntary maybe 2nd degree.
-
It really breaks my heart to think this guy was walking around with his dogs, acting as though he was in a time from the past, trying to go to old addresses as though he still lived there, etc., and no one had his back.
-
Yeah, this prick had very much chance to step back into his house and let the police deal with him.
There was no immanent threat. He was pissed this silhouette wasn't obeying him.
I hope he gets charged with enough to lose his guns - Because he isn't responsible enough for them. You don't fire because a silhouette disobeys you - You take cover (back in house) and let police deal with it.
Can't wait for the 911 tape... this prick all puffed up demanding the old mute man obey him. What a fckstick. I hope none of you supporting him are ever old and lost and unable to communicate, cause some hotshot may come out blasting becase you're in his yard and won't respect his authoritah.
-
The shooting occured at 2:30am, HOWEVER, it was earlier in the day that the elderly man had his encounter with the police officer who suggested he go home because he was dressed inappropriately for the weather.
Not that I'm casting blame on the officer he encountered earlier in the day, ...but if you see an elderly man, shuffling around ON FOOT, not dressed properly for the weather, carrying a bunch of mail, and stating he lived 5 miles away, ...wouldn't that be a bit of a clue that something was askew?
I can recall another guy who encountered police while carrying 2 pieces of mail (in his possessions) belonging to someone else, and he ended up beaten, tasered, and crying for his Daddy before his life was ended, ...but then again, he didn't belong to a certain demographic that gets treated with kindness & courtesy by police officers.
It's too bad Mr. Westbrook was an elderly white middle class man from the suburbs. If he wasn't, the cop he encountered might have done a stop & frisk, detained him and inadvertently saved his life. :-\
I do not remember exactly which source it was, however, it stated that he was indeed being charged. It was a delayed decision to lay the charges, however, they finally concluded it was appropriate.
The widow has stated she didn't think charges were warranted, however, it was not her call to make.
Where are you getting this information? Link?
The encounter with the cop was at 2 a.m., the shooting was around 4 a.m.
Around 2 a.m., the sheriff said a police officer found Westbrook by a mailbox and asked him what he was doing.
Westbrook replied that he was getting his mail. When the officer asked where he lived, the sheriff said Westbrook pointed to a well-lit house at the top of a hill where people were sitting on the porch.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/da-mulls-shooting-alzheimers-patient-enter-home/story?id=21080904
In this same link, it says no charges have been filed.
-
Feelings are subjective. Just because a person "feels" they are threatened doesn't mean they are and if you use "feeling" as the basis of determining fear as justification for using deadly force you are opening the door to justifiable violence for all kinds of crazy unnecessary killing.
The difference is you are using "feeling" and or "perception" as the basis for your conclusions. Which is faulty because it can't be applied universally to other similar or dissimilar situations. I am using logic and facts. For example: A man walks up to a door knocks on it and turns the handle. Is that attempted B & E? No. Not in any state. But if a man knocks on the door then proceeds to try and pick the lock it is Attempted B & E in any state. Its doesn't matter if the occupants of that house are home or not, 4am in the morning or new tot he neighbor hood. Nor does it matter whether or not the occupants felt their house was being broken into. If he uses a tool to B & E it is, if he simply turns the knob its not. Logic: the line of attempted B & E, Fact: He only turned the knob.
I am and I am not. Each part leads to another. If one part does not indicate he was in danger and then next part doesn't and then part after that doesn't and so on, how can you ever say he was in danger?
Its only becomes part of it if you are using a "feeling" as the basis for justification instead of the actual fact of whether or not he was at anytime in physical danger based on what was known to him which he never was.
It is an issue because at some point the man stopped trying to open the door and did not continue and or evolve his attempts by using other means such as a crow bar to gain entry. Therefore it is what it is. A man walking up to a door, and turning the knob and some point he stops and walks away into the yard where the man inside comes out and murders him. (That will be in my dramatic prosecution opening statements ;D)
I don't know why everyone keeps replaying this comment: "Did he violate any laws by exiting the house? No." That's not the issue here. Him shooting him is. Strange.
He could have fired warning shoots. Instead, he, without reasonable cause and or without impending physical harm shot and murdered the man in cold blood. (opening comments ;D)
This is why i bring comparisons like walking down the street and someone pushing me. It's about the "degree" of being threatened based on facts not feelings.
I should add: No way a jury is not going to convict him of at least involuntary manslaughter, probably voluntary maybe 2nd degree.
Are you saying fear is not a feeling? Then what is it?
Yes, fear is subjective, but it can be measured objectively. For example, most reasonable people would be fearful if someone pointed a loaded gun in their face. And most reasonable people would not be fearful if a kid pointed a water gun (that looks like a water gun) in their face.
I think most people would be fearful if someone tried to open their front door at 4 a.m.
You’re not using logic or facts any more than I am. We simply disagree. I think it’s illogical and unreasonable to say a homeowner would not be fearful if someone starts trying to open their front door at 4 a.m.
People keep mentioning the fact he went out of his own house into his yard, because the implication by some is that by doing so he committed a crime or at least a bad act.
Warning shots are unreasonable. Nobody is trained to shoot warning shots. Not the police, military, etc. If you’re going to use deadly force by firing a weapon, you aim for center mass, fire, and keep firing until the threat is gone. That’s what any credible use of force expert would say.
Good luck guaranteeing that he will not only be charged, but convicted. I’m not smart enough to know what the prosecutors or a jury, if any, will ultimately do.
-
"People keep mentioning the fact he went out of his own house into his yard, because the implication by some is that by doing so he committed a crime or at least a bad act. "
It's just that he KNEW it was a person up to something, he KNEW the police were on the way, he KNEW he was safe inside the house, he KNEW there may be danger to encounter.
He had every reason to stay in the house. People walk into elective gun battles - completely optional - for no reason other than they're pissed someone is out there and "won't obey my commands". There are a million reasons why a person in the yard might not understand him giving orders. Heck, it could be a foreigner. Or someone injured. Or a 72 year old mute veteran.
He was mad they were taking so long and took the law into his own hands. He gave an order then shot bullets at someone who wasn't capable of response. I can't believe anyone would be so fcuking liberal to try to excuse this kind of reckless use of a gun. Any TRUE gun enthusiast knows the responsibility that comes with the weapon. If he's scared, he should step back into his house and wait for police, not issue shots.
-
Every reasonable, responsible gun owner patrols their neighborhood and approaches suspicious cars and people, with hand on gun. ::)
-
hahah yup 240 used to brag about how him and his merry band of trailer park militia men would chase out unwanted individuals armed to the teeth.
Now he supposedly was a scared little shit who wouldnt leave his trailer....
So it was actually a group of armed men patrolling the neighborhood? Geeze.
-
So it was actually a group of armed men patrolling the neighborhood? Geeze.
Big difference - We would all come out at once (if someone blew the whistle) and we'd call police and take down license plate numbers and ask people what they were doing there. Many were there for drugs, prostitutes, etc that were just a few blocks over. Others just there to steal shit off porches, etc.
We didn't shoot our guns at shadows because we felt scared lol. We just made a presence known. We didn't pull guns. Never initiated anything.
I use my gun as a VERY LAST RESORT. This moron didn't. The fact you take the position "well, maybe he was scared" tells me you haven't mentally prepared yourself for how you'd react in a situation like this. beach, it's important that you think about it ahead of time. You don't step into a dangerous situation knowingly. You hit the floor, aim your weapon, and call 911. This clown wanted trigger time, and if he'd been shot for his horrible choice in tactics, everyone would be saying "oh, the poor guy".... um, this guy wanted a confrontation. The fact he gave orders and the old man didn't listen - wow, he totally chose to shoot. it was punitive for not listening to him. This guy should go to prison.
-
Are you saying fear is not a feeling? Then what is it?
Yes, fear is subjective, but it can be measured objectively. For example, most reasonable people would be fearful if someone pointed a loaded gun in their face. And most reasonable people would not be fearful if a kid pointed a water gun (that looks like a water gun) in their face.
I think most people would be fearful if someone tried to open their front door at 4 a.m.
You’re not using logic or facts any more than I am. We simply disagree. I think it’s illogical and unreasonable to say a homeowner would not be fearful if someone starts trying to open their front door at 4 a.m.
People keep mentioning the fact he went out of his own house into his yard, because the implication by some is that by doing so he committed a crime or at least a bad act.
Warning shots are unreasonable. Nobody is trained to shoot warning shots. Not the police, military, etc. If you’re going to use deadly force by firing a weapon, you aim for center mass, fire, and keep firing until the threat is gone. That’s what any credible use of force expert would say.
Good luck guaranteeing that he will not only be charged, but convicted. I’m not smart enough to know what the prosecutors or a jury, if any, will ultimately do.
? How did you conclude i was saying fear isn't a feeling?
I am not saying they weren't in fear. And i am not saying that they didn't have reason to be in fear.
And i am using logic and facts while you are using "feeling" as justification. I am using facts to show there was none.
He had no justification to shoot the man.
And he should have fired a warning shot. Point gun up in the air. Pull trigger.
You don't have to be smart to know that at the end of the day we have a person who shot and killed a 72 year old unarmed man with Alhztimers who didn't break any laws other than maybe trespassing, Who didn't verbally or physically threaten anyone.
-
? How did you conclude i was saying fear isn't a feeling?
I am not saying they weren't in fear. And i am not saying that they didn't have reason to be in fear.
And i am using logic and facts while you are using "feeling" as justification. I am using facts to show there was none.
He had no justification to shoot the man.
And he should have fired a warning shot. Point gun up in the air. Pull trigger.
You don't have to be smart to know that at the end of the day we have a person who shot and killed a 72 year old unarmed man with Alhztimers who didn't break any laws other than maybe trespassing, Who didn't verbally or physically threaten anyone.
You're losing me a bit. Is fear a feeling?
-
Big difference - We would all come out at once (if someone blew the whistle) and we'd call police and take down license plate numbers and ask people what they were doing there. Many were there for drugs, prostitutes, etc that were just a few blocks over. Others just there to steal shit off porches, etc.
We didn't shoot our guns at shadows because we felt scared lol. We just made a presence known. We didn't pull guns. Never initiated anything.
yet youre the same ignorant dumb ass condeming zimmerman for checking up on trayvon after a bunch of break ins by someone matching his description had happened?
hahahah what a fucking hypocrite
-
yet youre the same ignorant dumb ass condeming zimmerman for checking up on trayvon after a bunch of break ins by someone matching his description had happened?
hahahah what a fucking hypocrite
Bwahahahahaha! A gang of gun-toting neighbors? LOL!
-
You're losing me a bit. Is fear a feeling?
Feelings are subjective. Just because a person "feels" they are threatened doesn't mean they are and if you use "feeling" as the basis of determining fear as justification for using deadly force you are opening the door to justifiable violence for all kinds of crazy unnecessary killing.
Fear is an emotion or a feeling. Feelings are subjective.
In this very situation I would be fearful but not so fearful that I felt my life being threatened by a unarmed man to the extent that I would shot him.
This guy was so fearful he shot him.
2 different interpolations and reactions of fear. How can we set a standard for justifiably use of deadly force?: The facts.
He shot an unarmed man who wasn't attempting to B&E, who hadn't gained entry into his home.
-
Fear is an emotion or a feeling. Feelings are subjective.
In this very situation I would be fearful but not so fearful that I felt my life being threatened by a unarmed man to the extent that I would shot him.
This guy was so fearful he shot him.
2 different interpolations and reactions of fear. How can we set a standard for justifiably use of deadly force?: The facts.
He shot an unarmed man who wasn't attempting to B&E, who hadn't gained entry into his home.
Ok. Thanks for clarifying.
Whether the elderly man was actually trying to break and enter isn't a relevant fact. That's not the standard. Or is it? Where are you getting this breaking and entering aspect?
What's relevant is whether the elderly man who was trying to open the owner's door (a fact,) at 4 a.m. (a fact), failed to respond to commands (a fact), approached the owner on the owner's property (a fact), caused the owner, who had recently moved into the neighborhood (a fact) to feel threatened (an opinion).
-
Ok. Thanks for clarifying.
Whether the elderly man was actually trying to break and enter isn't a relevant fact. That's not the standard. Or is it? Where are you getting this breaking and entering aspect?
What's relevant is whether the elderly man who was trying to open the owner's door (a fact,) at 4 a.m. (a fact), failed to respond to commands (a fact), approached the owner on the owner's property (a fact), caused the owner, who had recently moved into the neighborhood (a fact) to feel threatened (an opinion).
It is very relavent. Because in the house they are safe and the man isn't doing anymore than turning the knob. He then goes outside to shot him. In fact it's suggested the man had walked away from the door.
So now you have a man leaving a safe place that wasn't currently being attempted to be broken Into and never was and goes outside to man who's away from the door who doesn't respond and shots him.
-
It is very relavent. Because in the house they are safe and the man isn't doing anymore than turning the knob. He then goes outside to shot him. In fact it's suggested the man had walked away from the door.
So now you have a man leaving a safe place that wasn't currently being attempted to be broken Into and never was and goes outside to man who's away from the door who doesn't respond and shots him.
sorry Oz its not relevant, I agree he should have stayed in the house but the fact the old man wasnt trying to break in is not relevant to the situation as viewed from the home owner.
Its very logical that anyone who wakes up to a person jiggling their door handle at 4 am would feel there is someone trying to break into their home.
The fact that the guy was senile and didnt know any better has no relevance on the mindset of the homeowner.
-
Homeowner KNEW what was outside. A person that had tried to jiggle handle.
He went outside, gave orders, and the person didn't listen as he demanded. He fired.
It's gonna be tough to prove "feared for his life" LOL... Really tough. Old man, how many feet away? In the yard? After he'd been out there for 10+ minutes? Gooood luck proving that.
Can't wait for the 911 recording...
-
There are 2 kinds of people.
Those that avoid using a gun whenever possible, and those just looking for a reason to shoot another human being.
This man is the latter. Maybe he'll be charged, maybe not. But we know he's the type to leave safety of locked door and fire 4 bullets into an unknown target who doesn't obey him. He didn't HAVE to shoot.
He might beat the rap, he might be indicted. My guess is that he won't be charged. But I also know he's a guy that will also pull the trigger, even when not necessary. Just one of those types that "feels threatened" because he put his own jittery ass in the wrong spot. Fucksticks like this make me sick.
-
sorry Oz its not relevant, I agree he should have stayed in the house but the fact the old man wasnt trying to break in is not relevant to the situation as viewed from the home owner.
Its very logical that anyone who wakes up to a person jiggling their door handle at 4 am would feel there is someone trying to break into their home.
The fact that the guy was senile and didnt know any better has no relevance on the mindset of the homeowner.
You aren't Thinking through. Because he stopped and walked away from the door. Then Hendrix went out side, got no response, the guy walked towards him and and Hendrix shot him.
The man wasn't doing anything wrong.
-
You aren't Thinking through. Because he stopped and walked away from the door. Then Hendrix went out side, got no response, the guy walked towards him and and Hendrix shot him.
The man wasn't doing anything wrong.
The bottom line is that, by the very bottom scrapings of the law, there are times when this shoot would be legal.
Completely unnecessary, entirely optional, elective by definition... But possibly legal.
This dude wanted to shoot a motherfvcker. Let's just be up front . He had waited long enough, was annoyed police took too long, was pissed the silhouette didn't obey him, and just wanted to shoot. Maybe it'll be ruled legal, maybe it won't be. But anyone who claims this dude didn't open that door looking for some trigger time adventure is lying to themslves ;)
-
The bottom line is that, by the very bottom scrapings of the law, there are times when this shoot would be legal.
Completely unnecessary, entirely optional, elective by definition... But possibly legal.
This dude wanted to shoot a motherfvcker. Let's just be up front . He had waited long enough, was annoyed police took too long, was pissed the silhouette didn't obey him, and just wanted to shoot. Maybe it'll be ruled legal, maybe it won't be. But anyone who claims this dude didn't open that door looking for some trigger time adventure is lying to themslves ;)
Like I said, I am no lawyer, but I would really be surprised if this guy doesn't get convicted.
They had already called 911, the guy had stopped knocking and was away from the door, the police were on their way and Hendrix went outside and confronted him, shot him.
-
Like I said, I am no lawyer, but I would really be surprised if this guy doesn't get convicted.
They had already called 911, the guy had stopped knocking and was away from the door, the police were on their way and Hendrix went outside and confronted him, shot him.
I dont think they'll convict him of murder. Sure, he pretty much invented the situation of "feared for my life", and sure, his lack of common sense resulted in a poor old disabled veteran being executed. But that sheriff sure sounded sweet on him. I'm sure his acting job of "Oh, I was so scared for my life!" did a good enough job to keep him out of bracelets that night.
They did take 3 weeks to indict zimmerman (some blame 'the media', but mounting lies in subsequent interviews kinda made that one a necessity). My bro shot a guy on video - two men ran into a pharmacy with masks and guns and buckets - and they still took weeks to decide if they were going to charge him, and 22 months to give back his gun!
My GUESS? The man will never do a year in jail. They may pressure him into pleading to something that'll give him a slap on the wrist, but it's Georgia, the law is so vague, and while this dude is nothing more than a restless idiot who just ran into a gun battle with a mute old scared man, the law may let him slide.
"Tragic mistake" my ass lol... but the law in these southern states lets people get away with pulling the trigger when entirely not necessary.
-
None of us know what type of guy the shooter is. He may have felt legitimately frightened. I don't think anyway would feel comfortable with a situation like this. Do I think he deserves jail time? I'm not sure. Let's get more information.
-
The sheriff's comment is persuasive to me: "Walker County Sheriff Steve Wilson has said he had no doubts that Hendrix felt threatened during the encounter."
This is someone who was on the scene and observed the guy's demeanor. He has a much more informed opinion than people (like us) who are just reading stories on the internet.
-
The sheriff's comment is persuasive to me: "Walker County Sheriff Steve Wilson has said he had no doubts that Hendrix felt threatened during the encounter."
This is someone who was on the scene and observed the guy's demeanor. He has a much more informed opinion than people (like us) who are just reading stories on the internet.
Well, part of being the policeman doing the talking is doing everything you can to keep the shooter talking.
No doubt, they've had followup interviews with him. Looking for him to change his story, like zimmerman's lawyer admitted he did - 3 versions of the same shooting, each scarier and more dangerous than the last lol.
They don't arrest/charge until the dude stops hanging himself with his words. We have no idea what is going on behind the scenes right now. They were doing follow up interviews with my brother for a week, and they had the shooting ON VIDEO. Walking him through the shooting a few times. And with the national spotlight on this case, no way they rush things.
I mean, unless you think the cop tells the camera 100% of what he's thinking at all times. I think police are more shrewd than that. "I kinda think he didn't have to shoot, but we're going to keep milking him for more info and give him enough rope to hang himself in court" isn't something that cops usully say to news cameras ;)
-
Comments made immediately after an incident are more likely to be truthful than comments made weeks or months later. That's partly why the sheriff's comments are persuasive.
-
None of us know what type of guy the shooter is. He may have felt legitimately frightened. I don't think anyway would feel comfortable with a situation like this. Do I think he deserves jail time? I'm not sure. Let's get more information.
yeah, the 911 call will say it all. If he's near hysterical with fear, and we hear "honey, I can't tell what he's doing, I'm going to open door for (insert valid reason), oh gosh, oh golly, here he comes, please save us, stop, please, i dont wanna shoot, please, no..."
Well, if we hear that, he's in good shape. On the other hand, if the 911 tape tells us "Fck this, we've waited 10 minutes and this MFer is still in my yard, I'm handling it myself... Open...Get on the door, A-hole, now MFer, I'm not gonna warn you again... You hear me? BAM BAM BAM. BAM."
Well, in that case, charge him. I've posted it 10 times now... the 911 tapes answer everything here. Wifey was on phone during shooting.
-
Comments made immediately after an incident are more likely to be truthful than comments made weeks or months later. That's partly why the sheriff's comments are persuasive.
Police are masters at taking the side of the shooter/suspect publicly and in the interview room, buying the sodas, patting them on the back for their bravery, all while getting statement after statement. Videotaping the walk-thru a few times. Then they hand over all the info they got, to the DA/prosecutor, and let them make the decision.
if there are inconsistencies and the recordings show malice, anger, anything but pissing-pants fear, well, look for charges to b brought up. The cops only make their recommendation to the DA, and only a foolish cop would tell the media, and the nation, that they thought the guy was guilty (while he was still cooeprating).
Wait til the questions go south and he lawyers up.
But yeah, dude, police are always your best buddy while they're getting info from you. The moment you clam up or lawyer up, the friendly part stops ;)
-
The sheriff's comment is persuasive to me: "Walker County Sheriff Steve Wilson has said he had no doubts that Hendrix felt threatened during the encounter."
This is someone who was on the scene and observed the guy's demeanor. He has a much more informed opinion than people (like us) who are just reading stories on the internet.
No one i see is arguing whether Hendrix felt threatened or not.
The core of the argument will be weather he was threatened enough to justifiably use deadly force.
-
I think the core of his conviction will be that he left a safe bastion, a house that wasn't in the process of breaking into, that wasn't being broken into in the first place and then committed murder.
-
some on this board think if you own a gun it's your god given right to blow people's heads off
-
some on this board think if you own a gun it's your god given right to blow people's heads off
Who believes that?
-
Who believes that?
do you?
-
I think the core of his conviction will be that he left a safe bastion, a house that wasn't in the process of breaking into, that wasn't being broken into in the first place and then committed murder.
This is the crux of the issue in my opinion. I ask myself, would I have done the same as Hendrix? The answer is a resounding no.
-
Who believes that?
No one. That's just a tactic of taking an extreme and unrealistic stereotype and sadly using it as an attack or argument.
-
do you?
No one has the right to take another persons life unless their life is being threatened.
-
This is the crux of the issue in my opinion. I ask myself, would I have done the same as Hendrix? The answer is a resounding no.
yeah...
You have 911 on the line, Police on the way, you have a gun and the guy isn't any longer jiggling the door knob or knocking on the door. In fact he's walked out into your yard.
-
No one has the right to take another persons life unless their life is being threatened.
while then we agree he's guilty
-
while then we agree he's guilty
What would you charge him with?
-
No one i see is arguing whether Hendrix felt threatened or not.
The core of the argument will be weather he was threatened enough to justifiably use deadly force.
The core issue is whether he had a reason to believe he was under a physical threat.
-
What would you charge him with?
manslaughter
-
No one has the right to take another persons life unless their life is being threatened.
Not that strict. Can be either death or serious injury.
-
The core issue is whether he had a reason to believe he was under a physical threat.
No weapon and no attempted forced entry.
Good luck with that.
also:
....he left a safe bastion, a house that wasn't in the process of breaking into, that wasn't being broken into in the first place and then committed murder.
-
No weapon and no attempted forced entry.
Good luck with that.
also:
I don't really have any more to add. I agree with the sheriff that the guy was afraid. Makes sense to me based on the factors I listed earlier.
-
I guy that's afraid or fears for his life doesn't come out of a secure house and look for someone he fears,not buying it
-
I don't really have any more to add. I agree with the sheriff that the guy was afraid. Makes sense to me based on the factors I listed earlier.
I agree. From the stand point of defending the shooter there really isn't anymore to add. He was afraid. The Sheriff thought so to.
If fear is the basis for his defense he's toast. There is no standard for the level of fear that's justifiable enough to use deadly force.....other than using circumstances and facts, which are:
1. No weapon
2. No forced entry
3. Attempted entry had stopped.
4. Police were called
5. Hendirx left the safety of his home and murdered the old guy because he walked towards him and didn't respond to questions.
-
yeah...
You have 911 on the line, Police on the way, you have a gun and the guy isn't any longer jiggling the door knob or knocking on the door. In fact he's walked out into your yard.
Could be a case of "I'm not letting him get away."
IF IF IF he had left the porch and was 10 or 15 feet away... it's gonna look real bad. Aside from the poor judgment he showed leaving the safety of a house with police en route... If this is a case of the old man giving up and leaving, and the shooter just wanting to make sure he doesn't get away (sounds familiar? ;) ), then the dude might be in trouble.
-
I don't really have any more to add. I agree with the sheriff that the guy was afraid. Makes sense to me based on the factors I listed earlier.
If you ever shoot a person - using this criteria - you're looking at a very shitty legal mess.
I beg ya man - and every other getbigger - do everything you can NOT to have to shoot. Protect yourself, of course, but you can let the police face an unknown threat in the yard in the middle of the night - that's their job, not yours. They have vests, powerful lights, training, numbers, and many other advantages that Joe Hendrix SixPack just doesn't have.
-
If you ever shoot a person - using this criteria - you're looking at a very shitty legal mess.
I beg ya man - and every other getbigger - do everything you can NOT to have to shoot. Protect yourself, of course, but you can let the police face an unknown threat in the yard in the middle of the night - that's their job, not yours. They have vests, powerful lights, training, numbers, and many other advantages that Joe Hendrix SixPack just doesn't have.
You and your band of armed neighborhood men are the last ones I'll take advice from on the use of deadly force. But thanks anyway.
-
You and your band of armed neighborhood men are the last ones I'll take advice from on the use of deadly force. But thanks anyway.
I wish every neighborhood in America had the cohesion we had in the trailer park.
Someone blows a whistle or sets off car alarm - and everyone in the place steps out of their place and onto the road. No bad guy wants to be a part of that.
-
I doubt law abiding citizens want a bunch of armed kids running around their neighborhood confronting "suspicious" vehicles.
-
I doubt law abiding citizens want a bunch of armed kids running around their neighborhood confronting "suspicious" vehicles.
LOL it was 2 of us in our 20s, and the rest were retired. Most were veterans. We weren't exactly carrying rifles on shoulders. more of a "that car is circling, let's ask them if they need help politely".
We didn't shoot people when they didn't respond. We calmly retreated to our homes and called the police. It's how one is supposed to act in situation like this, particularly in a close community. You don't shoot people who are unresponsive. Well, this guy did.
-
I wish every neighborhood in America had the cohesion we had in the trailer park.
Someone blows a whistle or sets off car alarm - and everyone in the place steps out of their place and onto the road. No bad guy wants to be a part of that.
-
Responsible people don't go looking for trouble with loaded guns. Glad I didn't live in your neighborhood.
-
Responsible people don't go looking for trouble with loaded guns. Glad I didn't live in your neighborhood.
You excuse what Hendrix did as "he was scared". But you condemn my actions. I stood on my curb (legally permit armed) with phone in hand to call police. Big difference there.
I've been punched in the face while armed. I took the hit and walked away. I've been scared in some situations and angry in others and outright irate at others, at times when people were truly deserving of a pistol whipping.
I don't draw my guns in those situations. No responsible gun owner does.
The funny thing, BB, is that I think you'd rather share a neighborhood with Hendrix, firing into mute, disabled veteran elderly shadows, than me, who organized others to observe people up to no good while never drawing weapons. I'm all about non-violence and making the police do their job, man. I'm also all about locking up heroes who fire weapons when not truly necessary.
Is the 911 tape out? It'll blow this thread up to 75 pages when that happens.
-
You aren't Thinking through. Because he stopped and walked away from the door. Then Hendrix went out side, got no response, the guy walked towards him and and Hendrix shot him.
The man wasn't doing anything wrong.
I agree the man wasnt doing anything wrong but the homeowner didnt know that.
Youre trying to say that the fact the guy was senile and just lost means the homeowner shouldnt have felt threatened. Anyone who wakes up at 4 am to someone trying to get in their house is going to feel threatened.
-
You excuse what Hendrix did as "he was scared". But you condemn my actions. I stood on my curb (legally permit armed) with phone in hand to call police. Big difference there.
I've been punched in the face while armed. I took the hit and walked away. I've been scared in some situations and angry in others and outright irate at others, at times when people were truly deserving of a pistol whipping.
I don't draw my guns in those situations. No responsible gun owner does.
The funny thing, BB, is that I think you'd rather share a neighborhood with Hendrix, firing into mute, disabled veteran elderly shadows, than me, who organized others to observe people up to no good while never drawing weapons. I'm all about non-violence and making the police do their job, man. I'm also all about locking up heroes who fire weapons when not truly necessary.
Is the 911 tape out? It'll blow this thread up to 75 pages when that happens.
no you just walk around with other armed men with your hands on your guns looking for trouble...I guess we should just start calling you zimmerman
-
lol... i dont chase a dude 2 blocks for a fight.
I don't "give orders or I'll shoot" to people.
I've never killed anyone - and we all know I'd do EVERYTHING I could do avoid it. These cats, on the other hand, seem to do juuuuust enough to get legal permission to execute someone.
-
lol... i dont chase a dude 2 blocks for a fight.
right you just walk two blocks with an armed mob to confront people you think are up to no good with your hand on your gun.
-
right you just walk two blocks with an armed mob to confront people you think are up to no good with your hand on your gun.
Pretty creepy. :-\
-
I agree the man wasnt doing anything wrong but the homeowner didnt know that.
And.... The homeowner didn't know that the guy was doing anything wrong either. Other than knocking and jiggling a door knob which isnt wrong or against the law.
Youre trying to say that the fact the guy was senile and just lost means the homeowner shouldnt have felt threatened. Anyone who wakes up at 4 am to someone trying to get in their house is going to feel threatened.
And I am not trying to say that at all. Where do you get that idea?
Read some of my latest posts.
-
And.... The homeowner didn't know that the guy was doing anything wrong either. Other than knocking and jiggling a door knob which isnt wrong or against the law.
And I am not trying to say that at all. Where do you get that idea?
Read some of my latest posts.
seemed like thats what youre implying.
I agree the guy wasnt doing anything illegal but it seems like you think its absurd for the homeowner to feel threatened when someone is trying to open his door at 4am.
If all youre trying to say is they old man wasnt doing anything wrong I think most will agree to that but it seem like you want to say it wasnt logical for the homeowner to feel like he was in danger.
If you feel someone is trying to break into your house, you will feel youre in danger.
If someone is trying to open your door at 4 am, its reasonable to believe that someone is trying to break in
-
seemed like thats what youre implying.
I agree the guy wasnt doing anything illegal but it seems like you think its absurd for the homeowner to feel threatened when someone is trying to open his door at 4am.
If all youre trying to say is they old man wasnt doing anything wrong I think most will agree to that but it seem like you want to say it wasnt logical for the homeowner to feel like he was in danger.
If you feel someone is trying to break into your house, you will feel youre in danger.
If someone is trying to open your door at 4 am, its reasonable to believe that someone is trying to break in
No I don't think it's absurd that he felt threaten. Read more of my posts
No weapon no attempted b & e. he knocked, jiggled handled.
Hendrix left the safety of his house and killed a man.
-
Hendriz wasn't scared when he was inside the house. If so, he wouldn't have UNLOCKED IT and went into the darkness.
He only suddenly because totally scared for his life once he saw a silhouette that wouldn't obey him. There was nobody at door, no risk of B&E. No weapon. He wasn't attacked in any way. He was spooked that this silhouette had knocked and jiggled the door.
To pass on charging him, we have to believe all of this - Anyone deathly afraid doesn't open the door. Common sense - particuarly when police are close.
Now, to skip charging him, we have to 100% believe that hendrix is the kind of man that fears for his life when silhouettes don't obey him. That's a pretty shallow rubric for who you shoot at 4 times. If I see you, and I don't know who you are, but you don't do what I say - hey, I'm scared for my life and I get to kill you now.
dangerous precedent. Sometimes I see joggers when I'm outside. Somethings they have headphones on and cannot hear me. They'll jog right along my property line. Using the Hendrix rule, simply seeing a shape walking without answering is good enough to shoot.
Sheesh... this dickhead is a danger to society. Why candy coat it? NO ONE here would want hendrix living next door... cause when auntie ethel comes over to stay one day, she might get a little confused on her walk and try the wrong door...
-
No I don't think it's absurd that he felt threaten. Read more of my posts
No weapon no attempted b & e. he knocked, jiggled handled.
Hendrix left the safety of his house and killed a man.
oh I agree he should have not gone outside but that doesnt mean it was wrong for him to go outside.
He didnt know they guy wasnt trying to break into his house. You keep going back to the old senile mans intentions, the home owner didnt know his intentions.
-
oh I agree he should have not gone outside but that doesnt mean it was wrong for him to go outside.
He didnt know they guy wasnt trying to break into his house. You keep going back to the old senile mans intentions, the home owner didnt know his intentions.
Yes, It wasn't wrong for him to go outside, it was a bad decision.
Right, he did nt know his intentions but what he did know was that at the moment he decided to go out side the man wasn't trying to break into in house, was away from the door, and was trying trying to break in before or after.
Heres the thing, there isnt evidence of a physical threat. At least not that we know now. I don't see them letting this guy off the hook simply because he felt threatened that a guy was knocking on his door at 4 am, jiggled the knob, walk away from the door, didn't answer questions and walked towards Hendrix.
-
Yes, It wasn't wrong for him to go outside, it was a bad decision.
Right, he did nt know his intentions but what he did know was that at the moment he decided to go out side the man wasn't trying to break into in house, was away from the door, and was trying trying to break in before or after.
Heres the thing, there isnt evidence of a physical threat. At least not that we know now. I don't see them letting this guy off the hook simply because he felt threatened that a guy was knocking on his door at 4 am, jiggled the knob, walk away from the door, didn't answer questions and walked towards Hendrix.
I agree very bad decision
just b/c he is away from the house doesnt mean in the mind of the home owner the guy wasnt trying to break into the house. ITS 4AM IN THE MORNING!!! he could have thought the guy was just looking for another entry point, maybe trying to break in to their cars etc.
What the old mans intentions dont matter in regards to what the homeowner thought his intentions were. I think there is plenty of evidence to show that the man felt physically threatened or at the least could have felt physically threatened. Whether they charge him with something or let him go is another thing.
-
I agree very bad decision
just b/c he is away from the house doesnt mean in the mind of the home owner the guy wasnt trying to break into the house. ITS 4AM IN THE MORNING!!! he could have thought the guy was just looking for another entry point, maybe trying to break in to their cars etc.
What the old mans intentions dont matter in regards to what the homeowner thought his intentions were. I think there is plenty of evidence to show that the man felt physically threatened or at the least could have felt physically threatened. Whether they charge him with something or let him go is another thing.
There's no evidence he was physically threatened.
No attempted b & E
No weapon
No assault.
No verbal threats
No property damage
If you wanna argue knocking on the door and jiggling the knob is attempted B&E I think you will find that it isn't seen that way any where.
His defense is going to have to establish that he was physically threatened and they are going to have a real hard time doing that when he left the safety of his home and shot a unarmed man.
-
There's no evidence he was physically threatened.
No attempted b & E
No weapon
No assault.
No verbal threats
No property damage
If you wanna argue knocking on the door and jiggling the knob is attempted B&E I think you will find that it isn't seen that way any where.
His defense is going to have to establish that he was physically threatened and they are going to have a real hard time doing that when he left the safety of his home and shot a unarmed man.
Im not nor do I think anyone else is arguing he was actually physically threatened.
What we are saying is that he felt like he was in physical danger and yes that is definitely a logical conclusion.
In his situation Oz would you feel like you might be in physical danger after someone tried to gain entry into your house at 4 am?
-
He must have felt he was in ZERO physical danger when he was inside, with locked door.
Otherwise he woudln't have opened the door.
Tough for a juror to believe he wasn't scared by jiggling handle, but was scared of immanent death by shadow that didn't respond to him.
Actually... i'm a little shocked anyone is defending him. I"m pretty sure if blacked & 240 had jumped on the "totally legal shoot!" from minute one, yall would be arguing he used excessive force, just to argue lol.
-
He must have felt he was in ZERO physical danger when he was inside, with locked door.
Otherwise he woudln't have opened the door.
Tough for a juror to believe he wasn't scared by jiggling handle, but was scared of immanent death by shadow that didn't respond to him.
Actually... i'm a little shocked anyone is defending him. I"m pretty sure if blacked & 240 had jumped on the "totally legal shoot!" from minute one, yall would be arguing he used excessive force, just to argue lol.
yes b/c homes are 100% safe zones where nothing can happen to you or your property when you are locked inside.
is imminent death the standard here?
you said zimmerman was a totally legal shoot and we werent arguing excessive force where we there?
-
zimm was getting his ass kicked.
this dude was just pissed off about police taking too long, and the mute man disobeying him. never took a beatdown lol.
-
zimm was getting his ass kicked.
this dude was just pissed off about police taking too long, and the mute man disobeying him. never took a beatdown lol.
was the old guy a mute or are you just lying again...look who im asking, of course youre lying
what do you have to show that he was pissed off?
-
Im not nor do I think anyone else is arguing he was actually physically threatened.
What we are saying is that he felt like he was in physical danger and yes that is definitely a logical conclusion.
In his situation Oz would you feel like you might be in physical danger after someone tried to gain entry into your house at 4 am?
Which bring us to my point from the beginning. Are you justified by law in using deadly force because you feel you are in Danger or because you really are?
-
was the old guy a mute
Mr Westbrook, a former Air Force pilot, had been left mute by advanced Alzheimer's Disease
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2514803/Man-Alzheimers-shot-homeowner-ringing-doorbell.html#ixzz2mpeX7HQ3
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
-
Which bring us to my point from the beginning. Are you justified by law in using deadly force because you feel you are in Danger or because you really are?
I think that comes down to the reasonable person standard, would a reasonable person in that situation feel like they were in danger?
If you reasonably feel you are in danger, do you believe its ok to defend yourself oz?
-
I think that comes down to the reasonable person standard, would a reasonable person in that situation feel like they were in danger?
If you reasonably feel you are in danger, do you believe its ok to defend yourself oz?
This guy was NOT defending himself. He wasn't attacked. How can someone who is clearly the aggressor be considered "defending himself"? Only the state of Israel gets away with that, ...ordinary citizens don't.
-
This guy was NOT defending himself. He wasn't attacked. How can someone who is clearly the aggressor be considered "defending himself"? Only the state of Israel gets away with that, ...ordinary citizens don't.
the man tried to gain entry into his house, you are allowed to defend yourself and your property.
if someone was trying to open your door at 4 am would you feel threatened jagson?
-
the man tried to gain entry into his house, you are allowed to defend yourself and your property.
if someone was trying to open your door at 4 am would you feel threatened jagson?
I've experienced it many times, and I can tell you feeling threatened, ...and BEING threatened are two different things.
When I had my Harbourfront condo, there was a guy who constantly tried to get into my place at 2, 3, sometime 4 in the morning. He was always drunk, and mistook my door for his. I'd always walk him over to the other tower, and get him inside his place.
A few years later while living in the suburbs, my mother decided to hop on a plane and fly to Canada, and not tell anyone she was coming. By the time she landed, got through customs, collected her luggage, she thought it was too late to be calling, so instead she just arrived at my house, and tried to get in through the garage at 4 am. I was awake at the time, all alone in the house, and definitely heard someone trying to gain access via the garage. She figured she'd come in via the laundry room, since she had a key to the laundry room door. I was on the phone with 911 at the time, and knew that even though the intruder had gained entry into my garage, there was still another barrier they had to get through, ...and potentially many more barriers within my home, if they breached the laundry room door.
Just because I FELT threatened, didn't mean my life was in danger at that point.
Had I simply done what Hendrix did, and shot at a silhouette, my mother would not be here today.
-
Just because I FELT threatened, didn't mean my life was in danger at that point.
Had I simply done what Hendrix did, and shot at a silhouette, my mother would not be here today.
agreed feeling threatened and being threatened are different things but what you just admitted is that it was logical to feel threatened in that situation. If it was logical to feel threatened then it should be logical to take steps to address that threat.
whether or not he was justified will come down to the reasonableness of his actions.
-
agreed feeling threatened and being threatened are different things but what you just admitted is that it was logical to feel threatened in that situation. If it was logical to feel threatened then it should be logical to take steps to address that threat.
whether or not he was justified will come down to the reasonableness of his actions.
The question is not whether or not he felt threatened, but rather one of whether was justified in using deadly force. He had already taken steps to address the threat. he'd called 911, and his doors were locked. What he did by going outside, was not addressing the threat. All he did by going outside was escalate the threat to Westbrook. If one had indeed existed for him, his actions would only have increased it
I've been on an elevator when some stepped on, ...and just the mere sight of them made me feel threatened. It doesn't give me the right to pull out a gun and shoot, ....and it sure didn't give him the right to shoot at a silhouette.
I guarantee you if that silhouette had been a police officer who was investigating his 911 call, there would be an entirely different dialogue occuring. His actions were stupid & foolhardly, and his possession of a weapon is a danger to others.
-
The question is not whether or not he felt threatened, but rather one of whether was justified in using deadly force. He had already taken steps to address the threat. he'd called 911, and his doors were locked. What he did by going outside, was not addressing the threat. All he did by going outside was escalate the threat to Westbrook. If one had indeed existed for him, his actions would only have increased it
I've been on an elevator when some stepped on, ...and just the mere sight of them made me feel threatened. It doesn't give me the right to pull out a gun and shoot, ....and it sure didn't give him the right to shoot at a silhouette.
I guarantee you if that silhouette had been a police officer who was investigating his 911 call, there would be an entirely different dialogue occuring. His actions were stupid & foolhardly, and his possession of a weapon is a danger to others.
agreed his actions were stupid but that doesnt make them illegal...
you pulling out a gun on an elevator just b/c someone got on you didnt like the look of is not reasonable.
Shooting at someone who tried to break into your house and is not responding to commands while you are pointing a gun at them maybe for many people.
-
He wasn't attacked. Bottom line, he was not attacked. We all have to agree there. Jiggle handle and walked away. Never touched him.
The stuff at the door wasn't a part of the shooting - If he was fearing for his life due to handle, he wouldn't have opened door. Any reasonable jury will decide that.
He shot because he feared a man in his yard that wouldn't obey a command to halt. If the jury declares it's reasonable for a 33 year old man with a gun to be that scared of a silhouette, so be it.
But you cannot say you feared for life due to jiggling - but you were not scared enough to stay locked in lol. This case is a little silly... If trayvon shot zimmerman on trayvon's lawn because zimmerman, the drunk local dude with a busted hearing aide, didn't obey trayvon's command to halt... I doubt most people would support the shooting.
-
He wasn't attacked. Bottom line, he was not attacked. We all have to agree there. Jiggle handle and walked away. Never touched him.
The stuff at the door wasn't a part of the shooting - If he was fearing for his life due to handle, he wouldn't have opened door. Any reasonable jury will decide that.
He shot because he feared a man in his yard that wouldn't obey a command to halt. If the jury declares it's reasonable for a 33 year old man with a gun to be that scared of a silhouette, so be it.
But you cannot say you feared for life due to jiggling - but you were not scared enough to stay locked in lol. This case is a little silly... If trayvon shot zimmerman on trayvon's lawn because zimmerman, the drunk local dude with a busted hearing aide, didn't obey trayvon's command to halt... I doubt most people would support the shooting.
fear of his life does not mean he didint feel threatened...
I asked you once already if imminent death was the standard of law here but you didnt answer.
Maybe he thought the guy was trying to steal his car or looking for another way in. Whatever reason he had for going outside doesnt make his actions once outside automatically illegal.
-
fear of his life does not mean he didint feel threatened...
I asked you once already if imminent death was the standard of law here but you didnt answer.
Maybe he thought the guy was trying to steal his car or looking for another way in. Whatever reason he had for going outside doesnt make his actions once outside automatically illegal.
I believe you can shoot to stop a forcible felony being committed, or if you fear for life. Is that incorrect?
My point is that he is gonna have an awful tough time proving forcible felony - I mean, that's rape or murder or really violent beating IN ACTION, actually happening. Now, fear for life, MAYBE, but he'd have to include the door jiggling in it, and that's gonna open the door for "why did you open the door if you were that scared"?
This is a case of a pissed off dude (police response time) going outside and trying to take control of a situation. When the silhouette didn't obey him, he panicked and fired.
Bottom line - I would rather have George Zimmerman be my next door neighbor, than this Hendrix guy. Cause at least Zimm screamed for help for 30 or 45 seconds before shooting. This guy wasn't touched and was just 'scared' and fired.
-
I believe you can shoot to stop a forcible felony being committed, or if you fear for life. Is that incorrect?
My point is that he is gonna have an awful tough time proving forcible felony - I mean, that's rape or murder or really violent beating IN ACTION, actually happening. Now, fear for life, MAYBE, but he'd have to include the door jiggling in it, and that's gonna open the door for "why did you open the door if you were that scared"?
This is a case of a pissed off dude (police response time) going outside and trying to take control of a situation. When the silhouette didn't obey him, he panicked and fired.
Bottom line - I would rather have George Zimmerman be my next door neighbor, than this Hendrix guy. Cause at least Zimm screamed for help for 30 or 45 seconds before shooting. This guy wasn't touched and was just 'scared' and fired.
i dont know the law in this state which is why i asked, is imminent death the standard of law in this state or not?
LMFAO you keep saying he was pissed but have no proof of it, par for the course for zimmerman 2.0 though
-
i dont know the law in this state which is why i asked, is imminent death the standard of law in this state or not?
LMFAO you keep saying he was pissed but have no proof of it, par for the course for zimmerman 2.0 though
Am I wrong about forcible felony being the standard for using deadly force in GA?
I want to hear the 911 tape... I may be wrong... but tony, IF the 911 tape shows an angry dude, bitching about police and/or the punk MFer in his yard... and the shooting happens after that... will you concede it was probably more about anger/punishment than fearing for his life?
-
Am I wrong about forcible felony being the standard for using deadly force in GA?
I want to hear the 911 tape... I may be wrong... but tony, IF the 911 tape shows an angry dude, bitching about police and/or the punk MFer in his yard... and the shooting happens after that... will you concede it was probably more about anger/punishment than fearing for his life?
lol so now its vigilante punishment? hahah fucking shit dude youre the biggest little bitch there is.
-
lol so now its vigilante punishment? hahah fucking shit dude youre the biggest little bitch there is.
aside from the fact I'm a little bitchmade...
My prediction (and only a prediction, as none of us have heard the tape) is that FEAR didn't drive him outside - it was anger. I bet he's bitching about the cops taking so long, and I bet he's dumb enough to say something about handling it himself.
The 911 tape will prove one of us totally right, and one of us totally wrong. I coudl be wrong of course. We are just predicting. But I predict it was done in anger and a sense of authority and punishment and "I'm totally allowed to shoot someone on my property if the police aren't going to show up" as opposed to "I was scared".
-
just so you guys know...
http://timesfreepress.com/news/2013/dec/06/two-scares-in-the-middle-of-the-nightanother/
Around 11:30 p.m. on Nov. 19, the girlfriend was home with her two children when a stranger knocked on the front door, said Hendrix's lawyer, Lee Davis. Hendrix, 34, was not home at the time.
A week before he killed a man with Alzheimer's disease in his backyard, Joe Hendrix and his girlfriend received a scare in the middle of the night. The stranger demanded to see someone else, someone the girlfriend did not know. As the unknown man at the front door continued to demand to see the house's former tenant, Davis said, Hendrix received a call from his girlfriend. He told her to call 911. Hendrix then headed over to the house, but by the time he and deputies arrived, the man at the front door had left.
-
aside from the fact I'm a little bitchmade...
My prediction (and only a prediction, as none of us have heard the tape) is that FEAR didn't drive him outside - it was anger. I bet he's bitching about the cops taking so long, and I bet he's dumb enough to say something about handling it himself.
The 911 tape will prove one of us totally right, and one of us totally wrong. I coudl be wrong of course. We are just predicting. But I predict it was done in anger and a sense of authority and punishment and "I'm totally allowed to shoot someone on my property if the police aren't going to show up" as opposed to "I was scared".
lol ok zimmerman, he was a angry vigilante blood thursty nut
-
Hendrix received a call from his girlfriend. He told her to call 911. Hendrix then headed over to the house, but by the time he and deputies arrived, the man at the front door had left.
Ah, that makes a lot of sense. Was he upset that 911 was taking so long to send police this time too? Was he intent on going out there and dealing with/detaining/identifying this guy?
It makes sense, and it's a perfectly human emotion to feel. He'd want to know who keeps knocking. I like that more info is coming out about this and I think once we hear the 911 recording, it'll all make sense. Sounds more likely (to me) that he went out there to make sure dude didn't get away.
-
lol ok zimmerman, he was a angry vigilante blood thursty nut
Zimmerman was a cowboy that wanted trigger time, but he did take a decent ass whooping before shooting.
This guy (IMO) wanted the phantom knocker to be identified. He probably waited until the jiggling/knocking STOPPED, and decided to go out there and detain the man before he left again. Makes sense, but you can't shoot someone for ignoring your detention demand.
-
Ah, that makes a lot of sense. Was he upset that 911 was taking so long to send police this time too? Was he intent on going out there and dealing with/detaining/identifying this guy?
It makes sense, and it's a perfectly human emotion to feel. He'd want to know who keeps knocking. I like that more info is coming out about this and I think once we hear the 911 recording, it'll all make sense. Sounds more likely (to me) that he went out there to make sure dude didn't get away.
hahah I knew you would take that under reported fact and spin it to fit your idiocy.
-
im pretty sure you will be proved wrong on this just like you were on the zimmerman case moron
-
im pretty sure you will be proved wrong on this just like you were on the zimmerman case moron
Maybe. But we are all just guessing & predicting. I don't call someone a moron for taking FSU -29 points tonight. You guess, you get some right, some wrong.
And WTF was I wrong about zimmerman? lol I was 100% correct he was lying his ass off - only when his own lawyer admitted it did many finally accept it. I was wrong about the verdict, but hey, we all get shit wrong, nobody can predict verdicts all of the time. When it came to his lying about it - me calling BULLSHIT on his story form mnute one... I got that right.
I called Hermann cain a lying womanizer from minute one... months later, he admitted it.
I called zimmerman a liar for embellishing - Only a year later did his own lawyer admit he lied about a lot of details in each subsequent telling of the story.
I called obama a liar on the Hollywood-style telling of the bin laden killing - and months later, we learn he lied all about that shit.
And I"m calling this dude a liar on fearing for his life while shooting. I bet it was anger and not wanting the dude to get away. We'll see if I"m right or not. I"m not always accurate on elections or verdicts, but I sure can tell when someone is a liar. I predict this dude didn't shoot because he feared for life, and we'll see.
-
Maybe. But we are all just guessing & predicting. I don't call someone a moron for taking FSU -29 points tonight. You guess, you get some right, some wrong.
And WTF was I wrong about zimmerman? lol I was 100% correct he was lying his ass off - only when his own lawyer admitted it did many finally accept it. I was wrong about the verdict, but hey, we all get shit wrong, nobody can predict verdicts all of the time. When it came to his lying about it - me calling BULLSHIT on his story form mnute one... I got that right.
I called Hermann cain a lying womanizer from minute one... months later, he admitted it.
I called zimmerman a liar for embellishing - Only a year later did his own lawyer admit he lied about a lot of details in each subsequent telling of the story.
I called obama a liar on the Hollywood-style telling of the bin laden killing - and months later, we learn he lied all about that shit.
And I"m calling this dude a liar on fearing for his life while shooting. I bet it was anger and not wanting the dude to get away. We'll see if I"m right or not. I"m not always accurate on elections or verdicts, but I sure can tell when someone is a liar. I predict this dude didn't shoot because he feared for life, and we'll see.
wrong about how he was chasing trayvon with his gun out and started a fight...but hey whos counting right?
youre wrong more often than not because you go off of emotions and not the facts.
-
240, I can't believe you're even engaging this clown ::)
-
240, I can't believe you're even engaging this clown ::)
how long were you in prison?
-
how long were you in prison?
I spent 3 days on location in Toronto's Don Jail in 1987 while filming "Cocktails",
and in 1994 I spent 7 days in Peterborough's Middlebrook while filming "Women in Chains"
-
I spent 3 days on location in Toronto's Don Jail in 1987 while filming "Cocktails",
and in 1994 I spent 7 days in Peterborough's Middlebrook while filming "Women in Chains"
you ever meet the trailer park boys?
-
you ever meet the trailer park boys?
No, I've never met the actors who portray the trailer park boys, but I do know one of the guys who was used as the template for one of the characters. lol
-
I spent 3 days on location in Toronto's Don Jail in 1987 while filming "Cocktails",
and in 1994 I spent 7 days in Peterborough's Middlebrook while filming "Women in Chains"
Tony, when they bring in a film crew, we don't circulate with the prison population.
Things are either set up in an unoccupied part of the facility, ...or if we have to use the yard, it is during a time when no prisoners are there.
The MOW was a security nightmare because most Canadian prisons are modern. Locations had a hard time finding an outdated prison that matched the look of a US Southern facility. The only one they could find was a maximum security facility for sex offenders. Can you imagine the logistical security nightmare of bringing in 60 women into a prison filled with Canada's worst sex offenders, pedos & rapists? ...who hadn't seen women in years? LOL, every 2 minutes they were doing head counts. I'm sure the prison was serving up extra doses of salt peter in their food that week. lol
-
Tony, when they bring in a film crew, we don't circulate with the prison population.
Things are either set up in an unoccupied part of the facility, ...or if we have to use the yard, it is during a time when no prisoners are there.
The MOW was a security nightmare because most Canadian prisons are modern. Locations had a hard time finding an outdated prison that matched the look of a US Southern facility. The only one they could find was a maximum security facility for sex offenders. Can you imagine the logistical security nightmare of bringing in 60 women into a prison filled with Canada's worst sex offenders, pedos & rapists? ...who hadn't seen women in years? LOL, every 2 minutes they were doing head counts. I'm sure the prison was serving up extra doses of salt peter in their food that week. lol
you didnt meet the trailer park boys so I dont give a shit about your acting career
-
you didnt meet the trailer park boys so I dont give a shit about your acting career
Haha! OK. Sorry, they shoot on the east coast. I'm in Toronto.
ps: You couldn't pay me enough to watch an episode of that tripe. ;)
-
do they charge him with manslaughter on monday morning?
-
I think that comes down to the reasonable person standard, would a reasonable person in that situation feel like they were in danger?
If you reasonably feel you are in danger, do you believe its ok to defend yourself oz?
Well then you would have 2 issues here:
1. Was in the person in danger or not? No weapon, no attempted B&E. Good luck getting a jury to aquitt someone who killed person who was doing nothing wrong and wasn't armed. And don't think the fact he was a mute, had Alzheimer's and was 72 years won't factor in, even though it's not relavent.
2. Feeling are subjective. They are subject to a persons perception. And although you are using the argument that a reasonable person would be afraid they will not acquit simply because he was afraid, they will aquit because he was legitimately in danger, refer to #1. And what works immensely agains this, here is that he went outside from his safe hoise and shot the guy in his yard.
I do believe a person has the right to defend them selves is they are in mortal danger and can use deadly force to do so. I believe if they guy had been trying to force entry onto his home, such as suing a crow bar or breaking a window, then Hendrix would have the right to shot him if he was in the act of dong so, not of he had stopped.
It's been over a week, I wonder if this guy is going to get charged. I would really surprised if he doesn't. Which means my amateur District Attorney certificate is useless. ;D
-
Well then you would have 2 issues here:
1. Was in the person in danger or not? No weapon, no attempted B&E. Good luck getting a jury to aquitt someone who killed person who was doing nothing wrong and wasn't armed. And don't think the fact he was a mute, had Alzheimer's and was 72 years won't factor in, even though it's not relavent.
2. Feeling are subjective. They are subject to a persons perception. And although you are using the argument that a reasonable person would be afraid they will not acquit simply because he was afraid, they will aquit because he was legitimately in danger, refer to #1. And what works immensely agains this, here is that he went outside from his safe hoise and shot the guy in his yard.
I do believe a person has the right to defend them selves is they are in mortal danger and can use deadly force to do so. I believe if they guy had been trying to force entry onto his home, such as suing a crow bar or breaking a window, then Hendrix would have the right to shot him if he was in the act of dong so, not of he had stopped.
It's been over a week, I wonder if this guy is going to get charged. I would really surprised if he doesn't. Which means my amateur District Attorney certificate is useless. ;D
the issue of whether or not he his actions were warranted dont hinge on whether he was actually in danger or not. It is based off of whether a reasonable person in his position would have felt they were in danger. Add in the under reported information that just a few days earlier a unknown man was banging on their door demanding to see someone who lived their previously any reasonable person could agree he deemed the threat to be real.
That is the problem you are having here Oz, its not about whether he was actually in danger.
#2 is completely false
trying to open your door without permission is trying to gain entry into his house. If they had accidently left the door unlocked and he made it in to the house would you be ok with him shooting then?
He still wasnt in any danger....
-
the issue of whether or not he his actions were warranted dont hinge on whether he was actually in danger or not. It is based off of whether a reasonable person in his position would have felt they were in danger. Add in the under reported information that just a few days earlier a unknown man was banging on their door demanding to see someone who lived their previously any reasonable person could agree he deemed the threat to be real.
That is the problem you are having here Oz, its not about whether he was actually in danger.
#2 is completely false
trying to open your door without permission is trying to gain entry into his house. If they had accidently left the door unlocked and he made it in to the house would you be ok with him shooting then?
He still wasnt in any danger....
So if I am not actually in danger, but I feel like I am in danger then I am justified to use deadly force? Lol. I don't think so.
-
So if I am not actually in danger, but I feel like I am in danger then I am justified to use deadly force? Lol. I don't think so.
if a reasonable person in your situation felt their life was in danger yes!!!
you dont have to think so OZ but thats the way the LAW WORKS!!!!
if the old man had made it into the house and wandered into the bedroom and been shot, Im guessing you would have been ok with it even though he still posed not threat.
-
if a reasonable person in your situation felt their life was in danger yes!!!
you dont have to think so OZ but thats the way the LAW WORKS!!!!
Is that how the law works? They a have a "standard for a reasonable person" and if that person feels they in danger they can legally use deadly force even if they are not?
Hahahahahaahah. Right. ::)
And it's beyond retareed to think a jury is going to side with a guy who shot an unarmed man NOT ithe act of B & E
if the old man had made it into the house and wandered into the bedroom and been shot, Im guessing you would have been ok with it even though he still posed not threat.
Stop with the deflection forum tactics ::). Stay on the facts of the story. Stop trying to stereotype me and distract from our discussion.
-
Is that how the law works? They a have a "standard for a reasonable person" and if that person feels they in danger they can legally use deadly force even if they are not?
Hahahahahaahah. Right. ::)
Stop with the deflection forum tactics ::). Stay on the facts of the story.
yes Ozmo that is how the law works...hahahah and I didnt say if they felt they were in danger I said if they felt their LIFE WAS IN DANGER...
and its not a deflection its a scenario to show you just how absurd your stance is and it cuts straight to the point, which is why you dont want to answer it.
but sure FACT: THATS HOW THE LAW WORKS....
-
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Reasonable+person+standardhttp://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Reasonable+person+standard
Reasonable Person
A phrase frequently used in tort and Criminal Law to denote a hypothetical person in society who exercises average care, skill, and judgment in conduct and who serves as a comparative standard for determining liability.
The decision whether an accused is guilty of a given offense might involve the application of an objective test in which the conduct of the accused is compared to that of a reasonable person under similar circumstances. In most cases, persons with greater than average skills, or with special duties to society, are held to a higher standard of care. For example, a physician who aids a person in distress is held to a higher standard of care than is an ordinary person.
-
yes Ozmo that is how the law works...hahahah and I didnt say if they felt they were in danger I said if they felt their LIFE WAS IN DANGER...
No weapon, no B & E.....
There lives where in danger. ::)
The defense will have to actually prove they was danger which they can't do.
and its not a deflection its a scenario to show you just how absurd your stance is and it cuts straight to the point, which is why you dont want to answer it.
but sure FACT: THATS HOW THE LAW WORKS....
Is it a deflection. If you have to use something isn't part of the case to show how absurd my point is, it only shows your desperation. So quit it.
-
No weapon, no B & E.....
There lives where in danger. ::)
nobody said their lives were in danger only that ITS REASONABLE TO BELIEVE THEY WERE!!!
The defense will have to actually prove they was danger which they can't do.
Sweet Jesus, no they wont...what they will have to prove is that a reasonable person in that situation would believe they were in danger and that will be pretty easy to do.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Reasonable+person+standardhttp://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Reasonable+person+standard
Reasonable Person
A phrase frequently used in tort and Criminal Law to denote a hypothetical person in society who exercises average care, skill, and judgment in conduct and who serves as a comparative standard for determining liability.
The decision whether an accused is guilty of a given offense might involve the application of an objective test in which the conduct of the accused is compared to that of a reasonable person under similar circumstances. In most cases, persons with greater than average skills, or with special duties to society, are held to a higher standard of care. For example, a physician who aids a person in distress is held to a higher standard of care than is an ordinary person.
-
I dont know what the standard of law is in their state as far was whats legal for deadly force but in certain states you dont have to fear for your life.
-
Is it a deflection. If you have to use something isn't part of the case to show how absurd my point is, it only shows your desperation. So quit it.
the law isnt applicable to this case alone, the laws you keep making up would be applicable to all situations as well.
I used your law and applied it to a scenario to show you how absurd that would be. Im sorry it offends you but you seem to be A-Ok with making up scenarios when you were applying your made up law to walking down the street. ::)
-
the law isnt applicable to this case alone, the laws you keep making up would be applicable to all situations as well.
I used your law and applied it to a scenario to show you how absurd that would be. Im sorry it offends you but you seem to be A-Ok with making up scenarios when you were applying your made up law to walking down the street. ::)
No, I am applying scenarios to support my point. You are applying scenarios and stereotypes to me claiming how i would judge a situation that doesnt apply to the case.
Get it now? Poeple do it here all the time. Normally I don't care, but I want to keep the discussion here focused.
nobody said their lives were in danger only that ITS REASONABLE TO BELIEVE THEY WERE!!!
Sweet Jesus, no they wont...what they will have to prove is that a reasonable person in that situation would believe they were in danger and that will be pretty easy to do.
That's it, he doesn't have reason to believe he was mortal danger or otherwise. No weapon, no b & e!
-
Like I said, it's a whole different story if he shot him in the act of b & e. but there was no b & e tobegin with.
-
No, I am applying scenarios to support my point. You are applying scenarios and stereotypes to me claiming how i would judge a situation that doesnt apply to the case.
Get it now? Poeple do it here all the time. Normally I don't care, but I want to keep the discussion here focused.
That's it, he doesn't have reason to believe he was mortal danger or otherwise. No weapon, no b & e!
no but i do get that you ok with you doing something and then calling out others for doing the same thing ::)
I wasnt applying them to you, i initially asked and did so MULTIPLE TIMES WITH NO ANSWER...afterwards i said "I GUESS" you would be ok with him shooting him.
I never said you would...::)
and thats great you have an opinion on it, the FACT IS HOWEVER THEY DONT HAVE TO PROVE HE WAS IN DANGER...WHICH IS WHAT YOU SAID!!!
they have to prove that a reasonable person would feel they were in danger.
-
no but i do get that you ok with you doing something and then calling out others for doing the same thing ::)
I wasnt applying them to you, i initially asked and did so MULTIPLE TIMES WITH NO ANSWER...afterwards i said "I GUESS" you would be ok with him shooting him.
I never said you would...::)
and thats great you have an opinion on it, the FACT IS HOWEVER THEY DONT HAVE TO PROVE HE WAS IN DANGER...WHICH IS WHAT YOU SAID!!!
they have to prove that a reasonable person would feel they were in danger.
. Playing word games now? I haven't been telling you how you would react or attacking for your POV.
Yes, they do. Otherwise, "reasonable" people can shot people when they feel threatened regardless of whether they are.
-
. Playing word games now? I haven't been telling you how you would react or attacking for your POV.
Yes, they do. Otherwise, "reasonable" people can shot people when they feel threatened regardless of whether they are.
fucking shit, whatever Oz youre so willfully ignorant about this is not worth my time.
I posted a link to show you and you skipped right over it never addressing it and continued with the making incorrect statements and looks like you will continue to do so.
have a good one bro
-
fucking shit, whatever Oz youre so willfully ignorant about this is not worth my time.
I posted a link to show you and you skipped right over it never addressing it and continued with the making incorrect statements and looks like you will continue to do so.
have a good one bro
Ok, from deflection, to word games, now to ad hom. This is how you debate Tony?
Yes, there is a definition for "reasonable person". Regardless, as I have said, &guy has to be established. Facts show they weren't in danger, especially when you factor in no weapon, no b and e, and he left the safety of his home and shot the guy in the yard. Otherwise, people can just kill other people simply because they "feel" threatened. That's stupid.
-
the dude wanted to punish the door jiggler. He wasn't scared, wasn't threatened, he was pissed.
Can we hear the 911 tape already so I can be proven right or wrong?
LOL in advance @ "Just cause he was saying mean things about police response time, this A-hole outside, and how these door jigglers always get away doesn't mean he fired in anything other than total fear".
I'm sick of idiots that fire guns when they don't have to. They belong in prison. You dont shoot until ABSOLUTELY needed. If you don't know what a silhouette is, you are scared, you hit the deck and get back inside. fuccking idiot.
-
Oz and Tony: It looks like you're saying close to the same thing, in your own ways. So calm down, girls. (btw, was waiting for this one to turn. I knew it would, lol)
-
Ok, from deflection, to word games, now to ad hom. This is how you debate Tony?
Yes, there is a definition for "reasonable person". Regardless, as I have said, danger has to be established. Facts show they weren't in danger, especially when you factor in no weapon, no b and e, and he left the safety of his home and shot the guy in the yard. Otherwise, people can just kill other people simply because they "feel" threatened. That's stupid.
it wasnt any more a deflection than you made up scenario, there are no word games in a definition either.
danger only has to be established so far as the reasonable person standard. The person does not have to be in actual danger, simply in a situation where a reasonable person would believe they were in danger.
THUS THE "REASONABLE PERSON STANDARD"
If a reasonable person in that same situation would have acted the same way, yes you can kill someone without actually being in danger.
Now you can argue a reasonable person wouldnt have acted that way b/c there was no real attempt at B&E etc. and thats fine all day long.
But it is completely FALSE to say that if youre not in real danger you can never defend yourself.
-
Oz and Tony: It looks like you're saying close to the same thing, in your own ways. So calm down, girls. (btw, was waiting for this one to turn. I knew it would, lol)
we agree up until a point and then take completely different routes.
Mine being back by the law, i would like to see why Oz feels the way he does.
Do you have some articles that cause you to believe what you do Oz?
-
I only know of being able to shoot someone using Castle Doctrine (in your house/car doing anything) or outside IF you fear for your life or in order to stop a forcible felony from being committed.
What I'm asking here - What defense can this man use for shooting? He was scared? Is that what youre saying?
What is the exact justification for shooting?
-
I only know of being able to shoot someone using Castle Doctrine (in your house/car doing anything) or outside IF you fear for your life or in order to stop a forcible felony from being committed.
What I'm asking here - What defense can this man use for shooting? He was scared? Is that what youre saying?
What is the exact justification for shooting?
nobody cares zimmerman STFU!!!
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/04/us/one-man-lost-and-impaired-the-other-fearful-and-armed.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0
good article explaining that you dont actually have to be in danger....
"Within two weeks, investigators will meet with Herbert Franklin, the district attorney, to decide if Mr. Hendrix will face charges. Mr. Franklin will be guided by what legal experts call the “reasonable person” standard as outlined in the state’s 2006 self-defense law.
“In order to use deadly force, you have to reasonably believe you are in imminent danger,” said the Gwinnett County district attorney, Danny Porter. “You weigh whether the homeowner can show he was in fear of receiving death or great bodily injury.”
understand this Ozmo YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE IN ACTUAL DANGER, YOU NEED TO BE IN A SITUTATION THAT A REASONABLE PERSON WOULD BELIEVE THEY WERE IN DANGER
-
it wasnt any more a deflection than you made up scenario, there are no word games in a definition either.
danger only has to be established so far as the reasonable person standard. The person does not have to be in actual danger, simply in a situation where a reasonable person would believe they were in danger.
THUS THE "REASONABLE PERSON STANDARD"
If a reasonable person in that same situation would have acted the same way, yes you can kill someone without actually being in danger.
Now you can argue a reasonable person wouldnt have acted that way b/c there was no real attempt at B&E etc. and thats fine all day long.
But it is completely FALSE to say that if youre not in real danger you can never defend yourself.
Not if Hendrix doesn't show himself to be in danger by his own account AND he leaves the safety if his home. It comes back to no weapon no b and e. With out a person actually being in danger, it would Open the door to killing only cause a person felt threatened. There has to be some actual danger.
PS: do you really think I am Talking about the definition when I said word games? Seriously?
And the thing you just posted Tony, the crux here is did Hendrix have reason to beleive? No. No weapon, no b and e!
-
so list the things we know factor into this case
1. imminent death is not the standard
2. you dont have to prove you are actually in danger only that a reasonable person in your situation would have.
-
nobody cares zimmerman STFU!!!
I'm not talking about zimm - I'm talking about the hendrix shooting.
What was his legal justification for shooting? "I was scared"? I don't know what legal premise that is, exactly?
Not forcible felony. Not castle doctrine. What is the legal justification? "I was scared" = ???
-
Not if Hendrix doesn't show himself to be in danger by his own account AND he leaves the safety if his home. It comes back to no weapon no b and e. With out a person actually being in danger, it would Open the door to killing only cause a person felt threatened. There has to be some actual danger.
PS: do you really think I am Talking about the definition when I said word games? Seriously?
And the thing you just posted Tony, the crux here is did Hendrix have reason to beleive? No. No weapon, no b and e!
thats what the debate is about Oz, what youve said specifically is that if a person is not in real danger then they cant defend themself...WHICH IS COMPLETELY FALSE!!!!!
If a reasonable person in his situation would have felt they were in danger of great bodily injury it doesnt matter if they guy wasnt trying to B&E or that he didnt have a weapon. If thats the case the DA will say he acted like a reasonable person would in that situation and no charges will be filled.
he did not know the old guy wasnt armed and was not trying to b&e, youre taking facts discovered after the fact and trying to apply them to how he acted before they were known
-
Oz if you want to argue that he didnt act like a reasonable person thats fine.
I think trying to apply knowledge gained after the fact to his thinking before they were known is pretty bad and wont hold up but thats fine.
The fact is however you DO NOT HAVE TO BE IN ACTUAL DANGER TO DEFEND YOURSELF
-
I'm not talking about zimm - I'm talking about the hendrix shooting.
What was his legal justification for shooting? "I was scared"? I don't know what legal premise that is, exactly?
Not forcible felony. Not castle doctrine. What is the legal justification? "I was scared" = ???
well zimmerman Ill tell it to you like this.
I think he definitely has a case for I felt I was in danger of great bodily harm. Whether that holds up or not, who knows...
Fact of the matter is it wasnt illegal for him to go outside and that has no bearing on the case just like zimmerman following up on trayvon had no bearing on that case.
Btw the cops were still 6 mins away when he shot the man.
16 min reaction time??? fucking really?
and libtards like you want to take away guns from people ::)
-
we agree up until a point and then take completely different routes.
Mine being back by the law, i would like to see why Oz feels the way he does.
Do you have some articles that cause you to believe what you do Oz?
You're on different angles of the very same thing. What each of you says, applies. That's the way I see it.
Can't make too many judgments, though, without knowing more about the guy that pulled the trigger.
One thing is for sure: The deceased was failed by someone. Somebody out there should have known enough to watch over this person. He shouldn't have been in this situation.
-
well zimmerman Ill tell it to you like this.
I think he definitely has a case for I felt I was in danger of great bodily harm. Whether that holds up or not, who knows...
Fact of the matter is it wasnt illegal for him to go outside and that has no bearing on the case just like zimmerman following up on trayvon had no bearing on that case.
Btw the cops were still 6 mins away when he shot the man.
16 min reaction time??? fucking really?
and libtards like you want to take away guns from people ::)
I asked a simple Q. What was Hendrix' reason for shooting? "I was scared" - Is that it?
What legal reason for shooting does that fall under? You wanna call named, bash police response time, talk zimmerman...
But I still don't know why the heck the shoot is legal - He feared for his life?
-
The shooting occured at 2:30am, HOWEVER, it was earlier in the day that the elderly man had his encounter with the police officer who suggested he go home because he was dressed inappropriately for the weather.
Not that I'm casting blame on the officer he encountered earlier in the day, ...but if you see an elderly man, shuffling around ON FOOT, not dressed properly for the weather, carrying a bunch of mail, and stating he lived 5 miles away, ...wouldn't that be a bit of a clue that something was askew?
I can recall another guy who encountered police while carrying 2 pieces of mail (in his possessions) belonging to someone else, and he ended up beaten, tasered, and crying for his Daddy before his life was ended, ...but then again, he didn't belong to a certain demographic that gets treated with kindness & courtesy by police officers.
It's too bad Mr. Westbrook was an elderly white middle class man from the suburbs. If he wasn't, the cop he encountered might have done a stop & frisk, detained him and inadvertently saved his life. :-\
I do not remember exactly which source it was, however, it stated that he was indeed being charged. It was a delayed decision to lay the charges, however, they finally concluded it was appropriate.
The widow has stated she didn't think charges were warranted, however, it was not her call to make.
Where are you getting this information? Link?
The encounter with the cop was at 2 a.m., the shooting was around 4 a.m.
Around 2 a.m., the sheriff said a police officer found Westbrook by a mailbox and asked him what he was doing.
Westbrook replied that he was getting his mail. When the officer asked where he lived, the sheriff said Westbrook pointed to a well-lit house at the top of a hill where people were sitting on the porch.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/da-mulls-shooting-alzheimers-patient-enter-home/story?id=21080904
In this same link, it says no charges have been filed.
-
zimm was getting his ass kicked.
this dude was just pissed off about police taking too long, and the mute man disobeying him. never took a beatdown lol.
How could he be mute if he had a conversation with a cop two hours before the shooting?
-
I asked a simple Q. What was Hendrix' reason for shooting? "I was scared" - Is that it?
What legal reason for shooting does that fall under? You wanna call named, bash police response time, talk zimmerman...
But I still don't know why the heck the shoot is legal - He feared for his life?
No one knows what was going through Hendrix's mind at that moment. Its a mistake to start assuming what someone is feeling because as soon as you do, your mind starts creating a story. You start with the premise he was scared you get one thing, you start with the premise he was pissed off, you get another.
-
nobody said their lives were in danger only that ITS REASONABLE TO BELIEVE THEY WERE!!!
Sweet Jesus, no they wont...what they will have to prove is that a reasonable person in that situation would believe they were in danger and that will be pretty easy to do.
I agree. It really doesn't make any sense to say a person has to be in actual danger of losing their life before they can use deadly force. From the Georgia folks:
“In order to use deadly force, you have to reasonably believe you are in imminent danger,” said the Gwinnett County district attorney, Danny Porter. “You weigh whether the homeowner can show he was in fear of receiving death or great bodily injury.”
-
Joe Hendrix was an Iraq war vet. Sheriff says no question the fiancé was scared when she called 911.
One Man Lost and Impaired, the Other Fearful and Armed
Bob Miller for The New York Times
By KIM SEVERSON
Published: December 3, 2013
CHICKAMAUGA, Ga. — Deanne Westbrook had tried everything to keep her husband, Ronald, in the house.
He was 72. Alzheimer’s had erased much of his talent for music and flying airplanes.
No one is sure how, in the frigid hours before dawn last Wednesday in this small north Georgia community near the Tennessee border, Mr. Westbrook ended up nearly three miles from home with a handful of other people’s mail, jiggling Joe Hendrix’s doorknob.
Mr. Hendrix, 34, stepped onto his porch with a Glock pistol in his hand and his fiancée inside on the phone with a 911 dispatcher. He fired four shots. One hit Mr. Westbrook in the chest.
On a cold and damp day Tuesday, Mrs. Westbrook buried her husband of 51 years, his death adding another chapter to the debate over the nation’s patchwork of self-defense laws.
“I understand the man who shot him is real upset, and I think he should be,” Mrs. Westbrook said in an interview. “He shot an innocent man. He should have stayed in the house like a normal person would.”
Investigators and a district attorney are weighing whether to charge Mr. Hendrix, a decision that exposes the challenge of balancing the right to use deadly force to defend oneself with the imperfect reality of snap decisions.
Unlike a case last month in Michigan when a white man shot a young black woman on his porch and the closely followed case of Trayvon Martin in Florida last year, this one had no racial overtones. Both men were white.
The legal issue revolves around the question of how scared was Mr. Hendrix — a young man who had just moved into the quiet neighborhood with his fiancée — in those early hours.
According to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation and Sheriff Steve Wilson of Walker County, a sheriff’s deputy first encountered Mr. Westbrook about 2:30 a.m. the day he died.
In the confusion that comes from Alzheimer’s, Mr. Westbrook had taken to collecting the mail from neighbors’ mailboxes. He was doing so that night on Marbletop Road, which is a mile or so from his home. He told the deputy he lived in a nearby house, which at one time, years ago, he had.
“Better get home,” the deputy said. “It’s cold.”
The deputy drove on, and Mr. Westbrook, in a straw hat and a jacket too light for the weather, continued walking with his dogs.
Just before 4 a.m., he was nearly three miles from home in the subdivision of modest new houses where Mr. Hendrix lives, near Chattanooga.
Mr. Hendrix, a veteran of the Iraq war who last year served as the spokesman for a Republican candidate for Congress from Tennessee, Scottie Mayfield, did not return calls seeking an interview.
At least twice, Mr. Westbrook climbed onto the small porch, tried to open the door and rang the doorbell, Sheriff Wilson said. Dogs were barking. The police were called.
The sheriff and Mr. Westbrook had played together in their church’s orchestra. Mr. Westbrook had been a skilled trumpet player, retired from the Air Force as a lieutenant colonel.
Sheriff Wilson said he wished Mr. Hendrix had just stayed inside. But he knows it was a tense situation.
“When you listen to the 911 calls, it’s evident to me that there was fear displayed at least by the female who lived there,” he said.
As Mr. Westbrook came around a corner of the house, Mr. Hendrix took his gun and repeatedly called for him to identify himself, he told the police. Then he fired the shots. Mr. Hendrix told investigators that Mr. Westbrook continued to approach him, so he fired the shot into his chest.
Deputies were six minutes away.
“When we sat down and told him the age of the victim and the diagnosis, he broke down and became emotional,” Sheriff Wilson said.
Within two weeks, investigators will meet with Herbert Franklin, the district attorney, to decide if Mr. Hendrix will face charges.
Mr. Franklin is already weighing another so-called Stand Your Ground case. Earlier in November, a 69-year-old man in neighboring Catoosa County came home to find two teenagers trying to break into his house. He shot one in the neck, a 17-year-old boy who died at the hospital.
In both cases, Mr. Franklin will be guided by what legal experts call the “reasonable person” standard as outlined in the state’s 2006 self-defense law.
“In order to use deadly force, you have to reasonably believe you are in imminent danger,” said the Gwinnett County district attorney, Danny Porter. “You weigh whether the homeowner can show he was in fear of receiving death or great bodily injury.”
Nearly two dozen states have some version of a Stand Your Ground law, and their popularity continues to grow. The Ohio House of Representatives last month approved a bill that, like many, would remove the need for a person to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense.
Georgia’s Stand Your Ground law was recently challenged by the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, whose leader, the Rev. Jesse Jackson, came to the state in early November to announce a lawsuit against Gov. Nathan Deal and the state attorney general.
Citing two recent cases, Mr. Jackson argued that the state’s law was being unequally applied to whites and blacks.
Mr. Westbrook’s death shows the continuing controversy over the law, even here in a part of the country where gun ownership is treated as a cherished right.
Chris Brown, 50, who lives down the street from the Westbrooks, supports Stand Your Ground laws. He is well-armed and not afraid to pull out a gun if someone broke into his home or tried to steal his truck.
“But if he’s out in my yard and I’ve done called the cops, I’m waiting for the cops,” he said. “What that guy did wasn’t Stand Your Ground.”
Mr. Westbrook’s widow herself is not sure that Mr. Hendrix should be charged.
“I don’t know what his mind-set was, and I don’t know enough about the law to know,” Mrs. Westbrook said. “But that’s all over now. His life is already taken. He took the life of a real gentle man, and it’s a crying shame.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/04/us/one-man-lost-and-impaired-the-other-fearful-and-armed.html?_r=0
-
So the reason Hendrix bought a gun is because someone had threatened his fiancé just a few weeks before the shooting.
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. He pounded on the door while Hendrix's fiancee was alone with two children, and he demanded to see someone whom Hendrix's fiancee did not know, Davis said.
She called Hendrix, who was in nearby Chattanooga, Tenn., who told her to call 911. By the time sheriff's deputies and Hendrix arrived, the man was gone. Davis said what happened was documented in a police report.
Afterward, Hendrix took a Glock handgun that he kept in his apartment and brought it to his fiancee's home.
Also, Westbrook tried to open the door twice:
Wilson said barking dogs woke up Hendrix and his fiancee in her home sometime before 4 a.m. Westbrook had walked to their house, the last in a cul-de-sac. He rang the doorbell, knocked on the door and tried the handle. In what may have been a startling move, Westbrook left the front of the home and moved out of view.
The woman called 911, and Hendrix got his gun.
While the woman was on the phone with a dispatcher, Westbrook returned to the door a second time, Wilson said.
And Hendrix didn't just come out guns blazing:
Hendrix left the house and found Westbrook outside in the dark. He told police that Westbrook ignored commands to stop, identify himself and raise his hands. The sheriff said Westbrook approached Hendrix, who fired four shots.
"Obviously, in hindsight, it's very easy to say, 'Why didn't you stay inside? Why didn't you keep the door shut?'" Davis said. "But the reality is, how long are you supposed to wait until somebody comes through your door? And had the person come through his door with his fiancee there, then what would have happened?"
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/suffering-alzheimers-ga-man-fatally-shot
Overall, after reading more stories about the case, I'm more convinced Hendrix acted reasonably. But I suspect the prosecutor might present this to a grand jury. Would be disappointing if he is indicted and/or prosecuted.
-
thats what the debate is about Oz, what youve said specifically is that if a person is not in real danger then they cant defend themself...WHICH IS COMPLETELY FALSE!!!!!
If a reasonable person in his situation would have felt they were in danger of great bodily injury it doesnt matter if they guy wasnt trying to B&E or that he didnt have a weapon. If thats the case the DA will say he acted like a reasonable person would in that situation and no charges will be filled.
he did not know the old guy wasnt armed and was not trying to b&e, youre taking facts discovered after the fact and trying to apply them to how he acted before they were known
Ok i get what you are saying and how the reasonable person principle is applied here.
However, it still comes down to fact that he left the safety of his house when there wasn't a forced entry or a known weapon involved and then shot the guy.
“In order to use deadly force, you have to reasonably believe you are in imminent danger,” said the Gwinnett County district attorney, Danny Porter. “You weigh whether the homeowner can show he was in fear of receiving death or great bodily injury.”
-
Mr. Westbrook’s death shows the continuing controversy over the law, even here in a part of the country where gun ownership is treated as a cherished right.
Chris Brown, 50, who lives down the street from the Westbrooks, supports Stand Your Ground laws. He is well-armed and not afraid to pull out a gun if someone broke into his home or tried to steal his truck.
“But if he’s out in my yard and I’ve done called the cops, I’m waiting for the cops,” he said. “What that guy did wasn’t Stand Your Ground.”
exactly,what he did was take the law into his own hands,no question about it
-
"Obviously, in hindsight, it's very easy to say, 'Why didn't you stay inside? Why didn't you keep the door shut?'" Davis said. "But the reality is, how long are you supposed to wait until somebody comes through your door? And had the person come through his door with his fiancee there, then what would have happened?"[/i]
Who ever is trying to come in, is also knocking on the door and NOT trying to force entry. You are supposed to wait until the police arrive and if they don't make it there in time shot the guy as he "breaks" in, which he wasn't doing anyway.
what you don't do is go outside......further risking yourself and potentially leaving your family defenseless or even worse yet shoot a 73 year old mute unarmed man with Alzheimers.
Guy is a fucking idiot who now will have to live with himself the rest of life, knowing that going outside was one of the dumbest a person could have made.
-
God bless the wife. I feel just terrible for her. If she insisted on trying to carry on some home life with her husband, though, (and bless her for wanting that), she should have had a signal fitted to the door, particularly for any nighttime events.
Obviously, the idea of someone taking the man as a threat, especially at night, should have occurred to Westbrook's loved ones.
Still, would like to know more about Hendrix, and would like to hear explanations for the inconsistencies.
-
Oh brother... he was a newbie with the gun, that makes it even worse.
He's only owned it a few weeks.. was the this the first time he fired it?
Sounds like he took all this OLD stuff (true or not, who knows), about her getting threatened, someone knocking and leaving previously, and someone jiggling the door - And he transferred it all to this Veteran.
"We were scared" = why you fired without seeing what you were shooting at. Cool. Glad he admitted it. Good luck with things now. I dont see how they don't charge him. To me, the ACTUAL threat is where the other 3 bullets landed. You have this half-cocked, agitated, "scared yet still opens the door and leaves safety to run into the darkness firing" dude sending stray shots into a residential neighborhood.
Would anyone here want to live next door to Hendrix? LOL keep defending this half-wit, gun-newbie coward who didn't have the brains to stay inside nor the judgment to hold fire.
-
I see reports that Westbrook was mute, while seeing reports that a cop says the man told him he was getting his mail.
Sounds like the "reporters" need to tighten their game.
-
Who ever is trying to come in, is also knocking on the door and NOT trying to force entry. You are supposed to wait until the police arrive and if they don't make it there in time shot the guy as he "breaks" in, which he wasn't doing anyway.
what you don't do is go outside......further risking yourself and potentially leaving your family defenseless or even worse yet shoot a 73 year old mute unarmed man with Alzheimers.
Guy is a fucking idiot who now will have to live with himself the rest of life, knowing that going outside was one of the dumbest a person could have made.
Who said you are "supposed to wait until police arrive"? I don't think that's what the law requires.
You wouldn't go outside. That doesn't mean that is the "reasonable person" standard. I'm not sure what I would do. I might go outside too if someone had previously come to my house and threatened my wife, then a couple weeks later a stranger shows up at 4 a.m. and twice tries to open my front door, and the police don't immediately arrive.
Pretty easy to be a MMQB. Much harder to make decisions in real time.
-
Oh brother... he was a newbie with the gun, that makes it even worse.
He's only owned it a few weeks.. was the this the first time he fired it?
Sounds like he took all this OLD stuff (true or not, who knows), about her getting threatened, someone knocking and leaving previously, and someone jiggling the door - And he transferred it all to this Veteran.
"We were scared" = why you fired without seeing what you were shooting at. Cool. Glad he admitted it. Good luck with things now. I dont see how they don't charge him. To me, the ACTUAL threat is where the other 3 bullets landed. You have this half-cocked, agitated, "scared yet still opens the door and leaves safety to run into the darkness firing" dude sending stray shots into a residential neighborhood.
Would anyone here want to live next door to Hendrix? LOL keep defending this half-wit, gun-newbie coward who didn't have the brains to stay inside nor the judgment to hold fire.
No, he was not a "newbie with a gun." He's an Iraq war vet.
And no, he was not "mute." He talked to the police just a couple hours before he was shot.
Tell the truth for a change.
-
I see reports that Westbrook was mute, while seeing reports that a cop says the man told him he was getting his mail.
Sounds like the "reporters" need to tighten their game.
He obviously wasn't mute.
-
Who said you are "supposed to wait until police arrive"? I don't think that's what the law requires.
Going outside nullifies him being scared for his life while he was inside. If you're pissing your pants in fear, you don't open that door.
Now he has to prove he feared for his life once he opened the door. Seeing a silhouette that won't answer... does that suffice? I don't think so, but maybe he'll get a friendly jury.
-
Going outside nullifies him being scared for his life while he was inside. If you're pissing your pants in fear, you don't open that door.
Now he has to prove he feared for his life once he opened the door. Seeing a silhouette that won't answer... does that suffice? I don't think so, but maybe he'll get a friendly jury.
No, he doesn't have to prove he "feared for his life." Tell the truth for a change.
-
No, he doesn't have to prove he "feared for his life." Tell the truth for a change.
Then PLEASE explain what his legal defense will be for the shooting. Nobody seems to be able to state that clearly. If it's not "feared for life", then what is it?
-
He obviously wasn't mute.
How did you come to this conclusion?
-
How did you come to this conclusion?
read he was almost mute
-
Seems to be a couple different stories about the cop's interaction with Westbrook. I wonder how that could be.
-
they will charge him,you have to,to send a message to these gun nuts
-
they will charge him,you have to,to send a message to these gun nuts
Why? They aren't the ones most likely to commit a crime using a gun. How would sending them a message result is less street crime?
-
Then PLEASE explain what his legal defense will be for the shooting. Nobody seems to be able to state that clearly. If it's not "feared for life", then what is it?
It has been posted about ten times in this thread:
“In order to use deadly force, you have to reasonably believe you are in imminent danger,” said the Gwinnett County district attorney, Danny Porter. “You weigh whether the homeowner can show he was in fear of receiving death or great bodily injury.”
-
read he was almost mute
The gentleman's mental capacity renders this potentially pointless, obviously, but would be great to get this cop on the grill - because SOMEONE is making shit up, and I sure hope it isn't the cop.
-
How did you come to this conclusion?
Because he talked to the police about two hours before he was shot.
-
Why? They aren't the ones most likely to commit a crime using a gun. How would sending them a message result is less street crime?
this wasn't a street crime,let's stay on topic.i have no problem with a home owner owning a gun to protect himself and his family,but what he did was take the law into his own hand,that's where you have to send a message
-
this wasn't a street crime,let's stay on topic.i have no problem with a home owner owning a gun to protect himself and his family,but what he did was take the law into his own hand,that's where you have to send a message
What would sending them a message accomplish? The vast majority of gun owners are law abiding citizens who have never broken a serious law or taken the law into their own hands. Seems pointless.
-
Because he talked to the police about two hours before he was shot.
This particular interaction seems to have a few different descriptions attached to it, not always including an indication that Westbrook spoke.
So it's quite a mystery. Could it be the cop made a sloppy initial report on the subject?
-
not talking about most gun owners, talking about idiots like himself.the ones that buy guns and think they're dirty harry
-
This particular interaction seems to have a few different descriptions attached to it, not always including an indication that Westbrook spoke.
So it's quite a mystery. Could it be the cop made a sloppy initial report on the subject?
It's not a mystery. If he was mute, I'm sure his wife would have said so and the cop wouldn't have said he talked to the guy. The wife would have been all over the "false" reports about him talking to the cop.
-
It has been posted about ten times in this thread:
“In order to use deadly force, you have to reasonably believe you are in imminent danger,” said the Gwinnett County district attorney, Danny Porter. “You weigh whether the homeowner can show he was in fear of receiving death or great bodily injury.”
Okay - So the defense is that Hendrix believed he was scared of great bodily injury? Is that the claim?
-
It's not a mystery. If he was mute, I'm sure his wife would have said so and the cop wouldn't have said he talked to the guy. The wife would have been all over the "false" reports about him talking to the cop.
So the fact that muteness is being WIDELY reported, is just misinformation, you'd say?
Could be, BB. Thanks.
-
So the fact that muteness is being WIDELY reported, is just misinformation, you'd say?
Could be, BB. Thanks.
I don't know if it was been "WIDLEY reported." I just know it contradicts both what the cop said and common sense.
-
I don't know if it was been "WIDLEY reported." I just know it contradicts both what the cop said and common sense.
Search: Westbrook mute
-
...it seems to be universally reported, in fact.
-
The sheriff is pumping this man for information. They'll let him make repeated statements. These will all be used against him in a trial. If he chooses to lawyer up, they'll charge sooner. The statements will have some variations eventually. He'll exaggerate things, maybe. He'll make it seem worse. He'll change his story.
Anyone can tell a good story ONCE... it's being able to recall the exact same recollection, 3 days later, that shows if a person is being 100% honest. Zimmerman told a grander story every time, all while the police were playing nice "oh yeah, you're a brave hero bro, we just need to get this on the record for the DA..."
IF IF IF he is bullshitting, the stories will show that. If the story remains unchanged, he's probably telling the truth. Either way, I can "perceive a threat" when someone stares me down at a red light... I can't open fire. It'll be interesting to see what kinda door it'll open if he walks because he killed something he coudln't even see because he perceived a threat lol
"He perceived a threat and that is why he fired his weapon," Wilson said. "He then came back inside and told the dispatcher he shot the man."
Walker County Sheriff Steven Wilson told ABCNews.com there was no doubt that Hendrix "perceived a threat" when he fired four shots at the elderly Alzheimer's patient. However the decision on whether to file charges will be left to the district attorney.
"It's a very unfortunate set of circumstances and we're just trying to gather the facts and the evidence," Wilson said.
-
I've seen reports that say the cop merely instructed Westbrook to "head home" due to his light clothing, and also that Westbrook used a hand signal to indicate where he believed he lived.
Would like to have some clarification, for sure.
-
...it seems to be universally reported, in fact.
It's not universal, because I've posted about three stories in this thread that say the police talked to Westbrook.
I did a quick search. Here is one: "According to The Chattanoogan, Westbrook didn’t respond to the commands Joe Hendrix issued to him because the Alzheimer’s disease had left him mute."
http://hinterlandgazette.com/2013/11/mute-air-force-vet-ronald-westbrook-advanced-alzheimers-killed-ga-homeowner.html
I went to "The Chattanoogan" link from the story and it doesn't say any such thing.
http://www.chattanoogan.com/2013/11/27/264495/No-Charges-Expected-To-Be-Lodged.aspx
Not wasting any more time with that.
-
Who said you are "supposed to wait until police arrive"? I don't think that's what the law requires.
You wouldn't go outside. That doesn't mean that is the "reasonable person" standard. I'm not sure what I would do. I might go outside too if someone had previously come to my house and threatened my wife, then a couple weeks later a stranger shows up at 4 a.m. and twice tries to open my front door, and the police don't immediately arrive.
Pretty easy to be a MMQB. Much harder to make decisions in real time.
Based on the info you have at the moment, you stay inside. That's the best thing to do. Nothing to do with it being legal or not.
-
Based on the info you have at the moment, you stay inside. That's the best thing to do. Nothing to do with it being legal or not.
Is this just how you would handle it, or are you saying that's what a homeowner must do?
-
It's not universal, because I've posted about three stories in this thread that say the police talked to Westbrook.
I did a quick search. Here is one: "According to The Chattanoogan, Westbrook didn’t respond to the commands Joe Hendrix issued to him because the Alzheimer’s disease had left him mute."
http://hinterlandgazette.com/2013/11/mute-air-force-vet-ronald-westbrook-advanced-alzheimers-killed-ga-homeowner.html
I went to "The Chattanoogan" link from the story and it doesn't say any such thing.
http://www.chattanoogan.com/2013/11/27/264495/No-Charges-Expected-To-Be-Lodged.aspx
Not wasting any more time with that.
I saw the stories you posted, BB. That's what made me question it.
Did you search Westbrook mute?
-
Is this just how you would handle it, or are you saying that's what a homeowner must do?
Must? as required by law? no.
However,the fact he left his house will factor heavily if charged .
-
I saw the stories you posted, BB. That's what made me question it.
Did you search Westbrook mute?
I just answered that: "I did a quick search."
-
Must? as required by law? no.
However,the fact he left his house will factor heavily if charged .
Perhaps. We shall see.
-
Perhaps. We shall see.
Yeah, real curious about this.
-
As I say, someone should have been working toward keeping this guy out of trouble. Somebody failed him.
-
As I say, someone should have been working toward keeping this guy out of trouble. Somebody failed him.
Nobody failed him. His wife did what she could to try and keep in in the house. I understand not wanting to put him in a care home. He just turned out to be a little more resourceful than she anticipated. Nobody needs to be blamed for his death.
-
Nobody failed him. His wife did what she could to try and keep in in the house. I understand not wanting to put him in a care home. He just turned out to be a little more resourceful than she anticipated. Nobody needs to be blamed for his death.
The guy that shot him does.
-
Nobody failed him. His wife did what she could to try and keep in in the house. I understand not wanting to put him in a care home. He just turned out to be a little more resourceful than she anticipated. Nobody needs to be blamed for his death.
So you think he should have watched out for himself, BB? How would you anticipate that happening, given his condition?
-
The guy that shot him does.
Nah. I'll be surprised if he is charged and/or convicted. But stranger things have happened.
-
His family failed him. Hendrix killed him but shouldn't be stuck with a long sentence. 240 is trying to paint the guy as a Clint Eastwood wannabe who went out to intentionally shoot the guy but that's all conjecture and wild speculation. He may have felt fear but he shouldn't have gone out of his house.
-
So you think he should have watched out for himself, BB? How would you anticipate that happening, given his condition?
I didn't say he should have watched out for himself.
-
His wife should have had a signal placed on the door. That one step may have made the difference between his life and death.
While it's understandable that she wanted to maintain a home life with her husband, someone should have considered the possibility that he could get into life-threatening trouble, particularly at night.
-
I didn't say he should have watched out for himself.
You understand that he could no longer watch out for himself. Right, BB?
-
Yes, I know a little about dementia.
The wife could have put padlocks on all the doors and windows. She should have put a tracker on the guy. She could have hired a 24 hour nurse. She could have placed him in a care home. Etc., etc.
We all make such great decisions in hindsight.
-
Yes, I know a little about dementia.
The wife could have put padlocks on all the doors and windows. She should have put a tracker on the guy. She could have hired a 24 hour nurse. She could have placed him in a care home. Etc., etc.
We all make such great decisions in hindsight.
So you wouldn't expect that it should occur to anyone, that Westbrook may place himself in a dangerous situation.
Okay. That's fair, I guess.
-
So you wouldn't expect that it should occur to anyone, that Westbrook may place himself in a dangerous situation.
Okay. That's fair, I guess.
Do you always invent statements and attribute them to people? Or are you just making an exception for me?
-
Do you always invent statements and attribute them to people? Or are you just making an exception for me?
Does an electronic chime on the door sound like a good, potentially preventative measure to you?
Would you recommend it to an older couple that faced this situation?
-
Yes, it's a heartbreaking situation all the way around.
I wish Hendrix could have kept his mind a bit more orderly, but it's tough to ask a person to be without fear in such a situation.
I'd love to know everything he said during the process that night, that's for sure. And I'd like to know everything he's said, since.
-
Does an electronic chime on the door sound like a good, potentially preventative measure to you?
Would you recommend it to an older couple that faced this situation?
Depends on the level of dementia and whether the person his a history of wandering, how mobile they are, whether other family members live there, the layout of the house, etc.
What I'm not going to do is second-guess that woman's attempt to take care of her husband.
-
Depends on the level of dementia and whether the person his a history of wandering, how mobile they are, whether other family members live there, the layout of the house, etc.
What I'm not going to do is second-guess that woman's attempt to take care of her husband.
I have no doubt she wanted to take care of her husband. No doubt, whatsoever. God bless her.
-
I have no doubt she wanted to take care of her husband. No doubt, whatsoever. God bless her.
Agree.
-
sounds like a rape case now ,blame the victim,must have been what she was wearing ::)
-
I wouldn't expect anyone to try and hold the wife responsible, obviously. Just to make it clear to anyone that would be so dim as to think that.
The risk-versus-reward with an alert system, though, is something that I'd hope a son or daughter may consider to suggest. Or a family friend, church member, pastor, etc.
Perhaps it isn't outrageous to think the wife was simply too close to the situation for it to occur to her, despite being such a potentially effective measure.
-
His family failed him. Hendrix killed him but shouldn't be stuck with a long sentence. 240 is trying to paint the guy as a Clint Eastwood wannabe who went out to intentionally shoot the guy but that's all conjecture and wild speculation. He may have felt fear but he shouldn't have gone out of his house.
Yeah, the more I think about it, the more I believe it was a tragic mistake - but still Hendrix' fault for firing a gun at a silhouette.
If you feel that much fear, you stay inside.
If you go outside and suddenly feel that much fear, you darn sure better be able to explain what made you so scared.
It'll be tough to cite "we were stalked" and "jiggled handle" and "someone knocked last week" as reasons he was scared the moment he fired. Anyone that scared doesn't open the door.
Truth of the matter? Dude was pissed, he panicked, he sure woudln't shoot if he had a do-over... but he did fire 4 times, not once. that's a lot of bullets. That's gonna be tough to explain. What scared him so much?
let's hear the 911 tape... I think 95% of us will be in agreement once we hear it. If there's 1% of anger or retribution or punishment in that man's voice in the background, he's in trouble. Yes, the FIANCE was scared - and she stayed inside. Let's hear how scared - or angry - he was, in the background. Let's hear what words he used to order the man to the ground. If he's calling him names, saying obey or I'll kill you, etc... it's gonna look a lot more punitive than 'fear'.
I chalk this up to fear + panic. Give him 8 years, he'll be out in 5. He shouldn't have fired.
-
How could he be mute if he had a conversation with a cop two hours before the shooting?
{shrug} Good question. Obviously it wasn't a verbal one. Perhaps you should ask the reporter who wrote the story.
-
Oh brother... he was a newbie with the gun, that makes it even worse.
He's only owned it a few weeks.. was the this the first time he fired it?
Sounds like he took all this OLD stuff (true or not, who knows), about her getting threatened, someone knocking and leaving previously, and someone jiggling the door - And he transferred it all to this Veteran.
"We were scared" = why you fired without seeing what you were shooting at. Cool. Glad he admitted it. Good luck with things now. I dont see how they don't charge him. To me, the ACTUAL threat is where the other 3 bullets landed. You have this half-cocked, agitated, "scared yet still opens the door and leaves safety to run into the darkness firing" dude sending stray shots into a residential neighborhood.
Would anyone here want to live next door to Hendrix? LOL keep defending this half-wit, gun-newbie coward who didn't have the brains to stay inside nor the judgment to hold fire.
This was not a case of a newbie with a gun. It appears more like a soldier having a difficult time transitioning to civilian life.
Perhaps in Iraq, you shoot at shadows that refuse to identify themselves, but in civilian life, who the fuck are you?! Seriously?! Who the fuck are you to bark orders identify yourself... then shoot when they don't? That shit may go down on the battlefield when you're hated for being an occupying invader, but as a civilian you are no more special than anybody else, ...and NO one should have to answer to you, even if standing on your property. If they don't want to tell you who they are... fine. They don't have to. Tell them to get the fuck off your property, and let them know the police are on the way.
A reasonable person should NOT feel like they're in imminent danger at that point, ...especially not when they know the police are on the way, ...and they themselves are armed with a gun!.
When they take the man out of the military, ...they ought to take the military out of the man too.
Good Luck trying to convince a jury that this Iraqi war vet who faced down all sorts of radical hostiles, IEDs, and Al Q insurgents in Iraq was in imminent fear of his life from someone ringing his doorbell on a Georgia cul-de-sac, ...so much so that he needed to fire 4 shots into a man for failing to answer him. This is a pure & simple case of testosterone induced brain damage. Now he has to live with the knowledge that he slaughtered a meek, elderly, befuddled, mute Alzheimers victim. A man who managed to survive his own incursion in Iraq, only to be slaughtered stateside by his fellow comrade in arms. :'(
-
Who said you are "supposed to wait until police arrive"? I don't think that's what the law requires.
You wouldn't go outside. That doesn't mean that is the "reasonable person" standard. I'm not sure what I would do. I might go outside too if someone had previously come to my house and threatened my wife, then a couple weeks later a stranger shows up at 4 a.m. and twice tries to open my front door, and the police don't immediately arrive.
Pretty easy to be a MMQB. Much harder to make decisions in real time.
Nobody threatened his wife, ...he is not even married. She was his fiancé
Someone came to the door, and demanded to speak with someone she didn't know, then left.
Maybe he had the wrong house? The problem with reality / perspective is that it rarely show you the way things are, it only shows you the way YOU are. And right now Americans are living in a state of FEAR.
FEAR = False Evidence Appearing Real!!!
-
“In order to use deadly force, you have to reasonably believe you are in imminent danger,” said the Gwinnett County district attorney, Danny Porter. “You weigh whether the homeowner can show he was in fear of receiving death or great bodily injury.”
This says it all....
How can you feel you were in imminent danger, fear of death, or receiving bodily injury when all that was happening was the door bell ringing and the knob jiggling, there was no attempted forced entry and then you decide to leave the safety of your home to confront who ever is out there?
FEAR= Fuck Everything And Run :D
-
As I say, someone should have been working toward keeping this guy out of trouble. Somebody failed him.
His widow has been doing everything possible, but if you've ever dealt with an individual with Alzheimers, sometimes, even despite your best efforts, they can and do get away.
That's why I find it so disturbing that he had encountered the officer, and the officer didn't think anything was amiss. Anyone else might have had to endure a thorough pat down and warrant check.
-
The guy that shot him does.
QFT!
-
Nobody threatened his wife, ...he is not even married. She was his fiancé
Someone came to the door, and demanded to speak with someone she didn't know, then left.
Maybe he had the wrong house? The problem with reality / perspective is that it rarely show you the way things are, it only shows you the way YOU are. And right now Americans are living in a state of FEAR.
FEAR = False Evidence Appearing Real!!!
The irony of this post is monumental.
-
This says it all....
How can you feel you were in imminent danger, fear of death, or receiving bodily injury when all that was happening was the door bell ringing and the knob jiggling, there was no attempted forced entry and then you decide to leave the safety of your home to confront who ever is out there?
FEAR= Fuck Everything And Run :D
ROTFLOL ;D
-
His widow has been doing everything possible, but if you've ever dealt with an individual with Alzheimers, sometimes, even despite your best efforts, they can and do get away.
What makes you say this, 24KT? General faith in the wife, or what?
That's why I find it so disturbing that he had encountered the officer, and the officer didn't think anything was amiss. Anyone else might have had to endure a thorough pat down and warrant check.
Yes. Real "funny" how that works with cops. Too often, they seem to have an uncanny instinct to do the WRONG thing.
-
How could he be mute if he had a conversation with a cop two hours before the shooting?
I meant to circle back to 240's idiocy but got side tracked
-
What makes you say this, 24KT? General faith in the wife, or what?
Yes. Real "funny" how that works with cops. Too often, they seem to have an uncanny instinct to do the WRONG thing.
People with Alzheimers don't know they're supposed to stay in the house.
Half the time they think it's still 1978. If they encounter a locked or barricaded door, they're going to open it, and not think twice.
-
This says it all....
How can you feel you were in imminent danger, fear of death, or receiving bodily injury when all that was happening was the door bell ringing and the knob jiggling, there was no attempted forced entry and then you decide to leave the safety of your home to confront who ever is out there?
FEAR= Fuck Everything And Run :D
b/c that wasnt all that happened, what youre doing is 1) applying information gained after the fact to his mindset at that time which is stupid at best and intellectually dishonest at worst and 2) cherry picking information about the incident.
Dont worry about the fact the guy was still wandering around his house, dont worry about the fact they guy didnt identify himself when told to at the end of a gun, dont worry about the fact the man kept advancing towards the man with a gun....
-
b/c that wasnt all that happened, what youre doing is 1) applying information gained after the fact to his mindset at that time which is stupid at best and intellectually dishonest at worst and 2) cherry picking information about the incident.
Dont worry about the fact the guy was still wandering around his house, dont worry about the fact they guy didnt identify himself when told to at the end of a gun, dont worry about the fact the man kept advancing towards the man with a gun....
What info gained after the fact?
Someone was knocking on his door, jiggling the knob. No forced entry.
With those facts known at the time how can you tell me imminent death, danger, bodily injury?
The knocking stopped, he had 911 on the phone and the decided to leave his wife and safe home.
With those facts known at that time how can you tell me imminent death, danger, bodily injury?
While outside the man didn't respond to question and was walking towards him. No running, not walking aggressively etc.
With those facts know at that time how can you tell me imminent death, danger, bodily injury?
Maybe the last instance, but did Hendrix say he thought he had a weapon?
-
People with Alzheimers don't know they're supposed to stay in the house.
Half the time they think it's still 1978. If they encounter a locked or barricaded door, they're going to open it, and not think twice.
Obviously, 24KT. That's why it would be advisable to have a door alert in such a situation.
-
What info gained after the fact?
Someone was knocking on his door, jiggling the knob. No forced entry.
With those facts known at the time how can you tell me imminent death, danger, bodily injury?
The knocking stopped, he had 911 on the phone and the decided to leave his wife and safe home.
With those facts known at that time how can you tell me imminent death, danger, bodily injury?
While outside the man didn't respond to question and was walking towards him. No running, not walking aggressively etc.
With those facts know at that time how can you tell me imminent death, danger, bodily injury?
he attemped to enter the house and did so more than once, so at the very least you can be honest and say that he was trying to get inside.
him leaving the house while it looks bad is not ILLEGAL and if he is charged the jury will be instructed that it should not play into their judgement.
Honestly Ozmo if you were in his situation and you left the house for whatever reason would you not feel like you were in danger?
be honest and answer the question, I think most people in that situation would feel they were in danger.
-
It's so funny...
Conservatives are supposed to be tough on crime.
Libs are supposed to be soft on crime.
This dude killed someone. Why? Cause he, a strong armed 33 year old was "scared for his safety" from an old man with 2 dogs barking in his yards.
LOL... it's just too funny... An old man is dead cause this dipshit got spooked and fired into the darkness... an old man didn't obey his commands so he killed him. Fuck this guy, seriously, fuck him. He doesn't need a gun, he's reckless. If he's that easy to be spooked, maybe he's not a safe bet for having a gun.
Where did the other 3 bullets land?
-
he attemped to enter the house and did so more than once, so at the very least you can be honest and say that he was trying to get inside.
him leaving the house while it looks bad is not ILLEGAL and if he is charged the jury will be instructed that it should not play into their judgement.
Honestly Ozmo if you were in his situation and you left the house for whatever reason would you not feel like you were in danger?
be honest and answer the question, I think most people in that situation would feel they were in danger.
heres the thing - NONE OF THESE THINGS AFFECT THE SHOOTING ITSELF.
Just as zimmerman chasing trayvon had NO BEARING on him shooting him in self defense.
He jiggled handle, gave up and walked away. THIS ENDS the home invasion part of things. You can't allow him to flee 20 feet and shoot him for it. Jeez, it's baffling to me. The OLD SHIT doesn't matter here. Someone came to their door last week, someone threatened her - THIS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SHOOTING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The shooting had to do with ONE THING - his disobedience and continued walking in the yard. That's it. You forfeit the "I was scared he was invading my home" the minute you leave your home. Being scared because of two previous incidents this old man had nothing to do with - has ZERO BEARING on the shooting.
Being mad and scared isn't a reason to kill someone. Look at this way... A guy has been attempted carjacked twice in the last week, drove away each time. I try his door handle at the grocery store, as we have the same car. Doesn't work. So I walk away. He EXITS HIS CAR, walks 20 feet to me, orders me to the ground. I don't listen, so he shoots me.
Sorry, any jury would LAUGH off a 'he was trying to carjack me' claim. Just as they should laugh off a home invasion charge once a dude is leaving and 10_ feet away in the yard.
-
what,s funny is all the gun nuts come and back this idiot,then it's actions from idiots like him that get gun laws changed . then the all cry :D :D :D :D
-
what,s funny is all the gun nuts come and back this idiot,then it's actions from idiots like him that get gun laws changed . then the all cry :D :D :D :D
What's your definition of a gun nut?
-
he attemped to enter the house and did so more than once, so at the very least you can be honest and say that he was trying to get inside.
him leaving the house while it looks bad is not ILLEGAL and if he is charged the jury will be instructed that it should not play into their judgement.
Honestly Ozmo if you were in his situation and you left the house for whatever reason would you not feel like you were in danger?
be honest and answer the question, I think most people in that situation would feel they were in danger.
Oh fucking quit it with the honestly bull shit.
Can we agree that there is a difference between tying get in a house and forced entry? Cann we agree that knocking on a door and jiggling a handle isn't agains the law?
Its not about whether it was legal or illegal to leave his house. It's that in leaving he is showing that he felt he wasn't in imminent danger death or bodily injury otherwise why would he leave his wife when no one is forcing entry and he has a gun?
The issue With the danger is the degree of danger. So to answer your question of course I would think there is some danger. Anyone would. But because there isn't forced entry, I have a gun and the Police are on their way, I have the means to defend and are the safest staying inside, i dont see myself in imminent death, or danger. To go outside wuld mean I thnk there isn't as much danger. Because thei would be leaving my family inside alone.
Now in all 3 steps...as I have asked you....
When was he as beach's linked article says, in IMMINENT danger, death or bodily injury?????????
-
heres the thing - NONE OF THESE THINGS AFFECT THE SHOOTING ITSELF.
Just as zimmerman chasing trayvon had NO BEARING on him shooting him in self defense.
He jiggled handle, gave up and walked away. THIS ENDS the home invasion part of things. You can't allow him to flee 20 feet and shoot him for it. Jeez, it's baffling to me. The OLD SHIT doesn't matter here. Someone came to their door last week, someone threatened her - THIS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SHOOTING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The shooting had to do with ONE THING - his disobedience and continued walking in the yard. That's it. You forfeit the "I was scared he was invading my home" the minute you leave your home. Being scared because of two previous incidents this old man had nothing to do with - has ZERO BEARING on the shooting.
Being mad and scared isn't a reason to kill someone. Look at this way... A guy has been attempted carjacked twice in the last week, drove away each time. I try his door handle at the grocery store, as we have the same car. Doesn't work. So I walk away. He EXITS HIS CAR, walks 20 feet to me, orders me to the ground. I don't listen, so he shoots me.
Sorry, any jury would LAUGH off a 'he was trying to carjack me' claim. Just as they should laugh off a home invasion charge once a dude is leaving and 10_ feet away in the yard.
and him leaving the house had nothing to do with the shooting.
this guys likely wont be charged if i had to guess
-
Oh fucking quit it with the honestly bull shit.
Can we agree that there is a difference between tying get in a house and forced entry? Cann we agree that knocking on a door and jiggling a handle isn't agains the law?
Its not about whether it was legal or illegal to leave his house. It's that in leaving he is showing that he felt he wasn't in imminent danger death or bodily injury otherwise why would he leave his wife when no one is forcing entry and he has a gun?
The issue With the danger is the degree of danger. So to answer your question of course I would think there is some danger. Anyone would. But because there isn't forced entry, I have a gun and the Police are on their way, I have the means to defend and are the safest staying inside, i dont see myself in imminent death, or danger. To go outside wuld mean I thnk there isn't as much danger. Because thei would be leaving my family inside alone.
Now in all 3 steps...as I have asked you....
When was he as beach's linked article says, in IMMINENT danger, death or bodily injury?????????
agreed that jiggling a door handle isnt illegal but it goes to HIS MINDSET!!!
you seem to have a problem with understanding that the fact he left the house does not have anything to do in terms of the law with the shooting....
you keep trying to bring that up but it has no bearing on the shooting itself. Yes he shouldnt have left the house, the old man shouldnt have tried to open his door. These things sit outside of the shooting.
and AGAIN HE DOESNT HAVE TO BE IN ACTUAL DANGER!!!'
what part of that do you not understand?
-
and him leaving the house had nothing to do with the shooting.
this guys likely wont be charged if i had to guess
Correct - He cannot claim anything about "dude trying to enter my house" as why he shot. He cannot claim "last week, we felt threatened when..."
Actually, it makes him look MORE likely to shoot when not necessary, telling us how spooked he was already, before old man jiggled the door.
I don't think he'll serve 6 years in jail.... BUT looking at the WORDING from the sheriff... "We're trying to gather more info and evidence, the decision is up to the DA"... My guess is that they'll charge him or they will work out an agreement. Involuntary manslaughter or something. They have to give him something, he shot an old man in his yard. Re-read that. He shot an old man in his yard. The minute that's okay, the minute people everywhere start doing exactly that. At least now, you KNOW, you can't shoot them outside, you have to do it inside. This dude got spooked and 4-tapped a shadow lol. Those other 3 bullets had to land somewhere too.
He' just too irresponsible. More anger than fear. He'll be charged, I'd guess, reading what the sheriff said.
-
agreed that jiggling a door handle isnt illegal but it goes to HIS MINDSET!!!
Mindset DOESNT MATTER - it actually works against him.
Suddenly he has a MOTIVE to shoot someone, not a justification. See the difference?
Jiggling created anger, not fear.
Fear keeps him inside, anger brings him outside.
-
Mindset DOESNT MATTER - it actually works against him.
Suddenly he has a MOTIVE to shoot someone, not a justification. See the difference?
Jiggling created anger, not fear.
Fear keeps him inside, anger brings him outside.
mindset is all the matters....was his mindset reasonable is the legal question
-
agreed that jiggling a door handle isnt illegal but it goes to HIS MINDSET!!!
you seem to have a problem with understanding that the fact he left the house does not have anything to do in terms of the law with the shooting....
you keep trying to bring that up but it has no bearing on the shooting itself. Yes he shouldnt have left the house, the old man shouldnt have tried to open his door. These things sit outside of the shooting.
and AGAIN HE DOESNT HAVE TO BE IN ACTUAL DANGER!!!'
what part of that do you not understand?
Do you consider yourself a reasonable man Tony?
Now in all 3 steps...as I have asked you....
When was he as beach's linked article says, in IMMINENT danger, death or bodily injury?????????
-
Do you consider yourself a reasonable man Tony?
the article both beach and myself does not state that someone HAS TO BE in imminent danger or death.
It says that a person has to reasonably BELIEVE they are in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm.
you do understand the difference between actually being in danger and BELIEVING you are in danger correct?
I only ask b/c seem to skip right over the BELIEVE part of the law standard of law.
-
{shrug} Good question. Obviously it wasn't a verbal one. Perhaps you should ask the reporter who wrote the story.
You haven't exactly been the most credible source in this thread. You claimed the police talked to the man earlier in the day, which is false.
You also claimed Hendrix had already been charged, which is also false.
-
the article both beach and myself does not state that someone HAS TO BE in imminent danger or death.
It says that a person has to reasonably BELIEVE they are in imminent danger of death or grave bodily harm.
you do understand the difference between actually being in danger and BELIEVING you are in danger correct?
I only ask b/c seem to skip right over the BELIEVE part of the law standard of law.
Do you consider yourself a reasonable man Tony?
Now in all 3 steps...as I have asked you....
When was he as beach's linked article says, in IMMINENT danger, death or bodily injury?
-
Nobody threatened his wife, ...he is not even married. She was his fiancé
Someone came to the door, and demanded to speak with someone she didn't know, then left.
Maybe he had the wrong house? The problem with reality / perspective is that it rarely show you the way things are, it only shows you the way YOU are. And right now Americans are living in a state of FEAR.
FEAR = False Evidence Appearing Real!!!
I know it was his fiancé, which is what I've said. I was talking about my own situation.
Egads. Americans are panicked. Maybe they don't know America has already fallen? :o
-
I meant to circle back to 240's idiocy but got side tracked
And Jag is like the female version of 240: both just flat out making stuff up.
-
Do you consider yourself a reasonable man Tony?
Now in all 3 steps...as I have asked you....
When was he as beach's linked article says, in IMMINENT danger, death or bodily injury?
if we apply the knowledge gained after the fact he was never in imminent danger of death or bodily injury.
NOT THAT IT MATTERS B/C THATS NOT THE STANDARD OF LAW, BUT IF YOU WANT TO TRY AND SAY IT IS GO AHEAD.
To many articles and posts including numerous ones in this thread that specifically say otherwise but if you want to believe it go ahead bro.
-
mindset is all the matters....was his mindset reasonable is the legal question
anyone in fear of their life (due to these previous factors and the handle jiggling) wouldn't have opened the door.
If you legitimately believe you're about to die by opening that door, you don't open it.
The fear of death or grave bodily injury would have to begin the moment he stepped outside. And I don't see how he felt that without even seeing who was out there.
-
anyone in fear of their life (due to these previous factors and the handle jiggling) wouldn't have opened the door.
If you legitimately believe you're about to die by opening that door, you don't open it.
The fear of death or grave bodily injury would have to begin the moment he stepped outside. And I don't see how he felt that without even seeing who was out there.
what you refuse to understand is its not what his mindset was when he opened the door b/c that was a legal action
it is what was his mindset when he pulled the trigger....
obviously you dont get this b/c you are still harping about zimmerman following trayvon which is along the same lines.
-
what you refuse to understand is its not what his mindset was when he opened the door b/c that was a legal action
it is what was his mindset when he pulled the trigger....
obviously you dont get this b/c you are still harping about zimmerman following trayvon which is along the same lines.
His mindset when he pulled the trigger should then only include that part which demonstrated how scared he was.
"I was terrified for ten minutes" doesn't work - Cause you don't open the door if youre terrified.
"I was terrified for 2 seconds after I ordered him to lay down then he didn't listen" is far less jury-friendly.
His justification for ending a human life = this dude wouldn't lay down, and I was scared. But not scared enough to stay inside ;)
-
His mindset when he pulled the trigger should then only include that part which demonstrated how scared he was.
"I was terrified for ten minutes" doesn't work - Cause you don't open the door if youre terrified.
"I was terrified for 2 seconds after I ordered him to lay down then he didn't listen" is far less jury-friendly.
His justification for ending a human life = this dude wouldn't lay down, and I was scared. But not scared enough to stay inside ;)
again him going outside does not factor into the legal question, but you like Ozmo can believe whatever you want
-
again him going outside does not factor into the legal question, but you like Ozmo can believe whatever you want
Going outside makes it a very SMALL window of this oh-so-incredible fear.
People who are shitting-pants scared don't leave their home to wander into the dark. Rather, it's people who are a little scared, very mad, totally annoyed, etc - And that's not the mindset of a justifiable shoot.
You shoot when you REALLY fear for your life.
I don't believe this man ever truly feared for his life. I doubt anyone here thinks he did. in fact, because he's a vet, because he's seen some shit in life, I bet he's MORE LIKELY to be cool under pressure. So the shooting may have been a "I'm putting an end to this recent bullshit in this new house" kinda thing, making it quite illegal.
-
Has anyone seen mention of any yard-light usage, etc.?
-
Has anyone seen mention of any yard-light usage, etc.?
I have not, i saw some pictures of the home though and it looks like a pretty secluded area. I think it was the last house on a cul de sac with it backing up to some woods.
-
if we apply the knowledge gained after the fact he was never in imminent danger of death or bodily injury.
NOT THAT IT MATTERS B/C THATS NOT THE STANDARD OF LAW, BUT IF YOU WANT TO TRY AND SAY IT IS GO AHEAD.
To many articles and posts including numerous ones in this thread that specifically say otherwise but if you want to believe it go ahead bro.
. I outlined all 3 parts, with the info known by hemdrix at the time, of this case in sequence and asked, as a reasonable person when during each step was he in imminent danger of death or injury and you have yet to answer saved that of saying he should stayed in thr house in another post.
I am assuming you are a reasonable person, am i correct?
And yes the fact he left his house factors into this heavily
-
And yes the fact he left his house factors into this heavily
Some people think that won't hurt him... but it really does two things. It speaks to motive, and state of mind.
Did he exit safety of house because he didn't want the person to get away? Doesn't help any self-defense claim. If his motive was to stop the bullshit he'd been going thru at the new house, well, he's going to jail then.
State of mind... you cannot claim you were extremely scared, so you unlocked door and wandered into darkness. The extreme fear that led to shooting would have to start the moment he steps outside. All that old shit had nothing to do with the old man. He did one thing - knock/jiggle, and leave porch. That's it. All that other shit leading to this dude being trigger happy - these had nothing to do with him.
"He was freaked out cause of all the shit that happened in the last 2 weeks" - UM, has nothing to do with the shooting. Realize this. I can't over-react and waste some dude at McDonalds because I'd been bullied my whole life. No, I'm only allowed to exercise force equal to the demand of that dude at that moment. You can't punish old man because of what you went thru in the past weeks.
-
..... So a case can be made that a reasonable person who was actually scared would have never left his safe house that wasnt in the process of forced entry and his wife defeneless and as many who support hemdrix's innocence have he should have never left the house. Interesting. Lol
-
. I outlined all 3 parts, with the info known by hemdrix at the time, of this case in sequence and asked, as a reasonable person when during each step was he in imminent danger of death or injury and you have yet to answer saved that of saying he should stayed in thr house in another post.
I am assuming you are a reasonable person, am i correct?
And yes the fact he left his house factors into this heavily
Answer the question ozmo
Do you get that he doesn't have to be in actual danger?
-
..... So a case can be made that a reasonable person who was actually scared would have never left his safe house that wasnt in the process of forced entry and his wife defeneless and as many who support hemdrix's innocence have he should have never left the house. Interesting. Lol
Leaving the house does not have bearing on the shooting, he may not have been in fear of imminent bodily harm when he left the house.
He still could have been when he shot the man...how do you not understand that?
-
..... So a case can be made that a reasonable person who was actually scared would have never left his safe house that wasnt in the process of forced entry and his wife defeneless and as many who support hemdrix's innocence have he should have never left the house. Interesting. Lol
He has to admit that "fear for his life", or whatever defense he will claim, had to begin AFTER he exited the house. Because people that are so scared they're ready to fire - they don't advance from defensive position and engage targets OUTSIDE of their castle.
Those actions indicate something less than "last resort shooting" fear. He advanced on his target, found him, gave an order, and fired. That's how you take the ground in a foreign nation, but not how you defend your "yard".
I bet this dude has given interviews every day this week... retelling the story every day as they decide to charge him or not. He's trying to talk his way out of trouble, BUT giving statements that can be used against him in court.
Oz, I'm baffled why responsible gun owners are defending this guy. It's like car lovers feeling obligated to defend idiots that drive 150 mph on city streets. They think if you don't support hendrix, you hate guns. It's possible to separate the two.
-
Leaving the house does not have bearing on the shooting, he may not have been in fear of imminent bodily harm when he left the house.
He still could have been when he shot the man...how do you not understand that?
YES! ! AGREED!!
In this case, he will have to show what happened on that porch "Stop or i'll shoot... 1, 2, 3... BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM".
Why did an old man taking 2 or 3 steps toward him (at such a distance he couldn't see who he was) make him scared enough to shoot? THAT is what he'll have to sell to the DA and maybe a jury eventually.
As long as we aren't using that punk defense "but he was scared cause of what happened last week".... awful defense.
-
YES! ! AGREED!!
In this case, he will have to show what happened on that porch "Stop or i'll shoot... 1, 2, 3... BOOM BOOM BOOM BOOM".
Why did an old man taking 2 or 3 steps toward him (at such a distance he couldn't see who he was) make him scared enough to shoot? THAT is what he'll have to sell to the DA and maybe a jury eventually.
As long as we aren't using that punk defense "but he was scared cause of what happened last week".... awful defense.
He wasn't on the porch he was on the side of the house where the old man had wandered to still trying to find a way into the house from what I read.
I agree that the previous situation with the man has little to do with the shooting thy night just like legally him leaving his house had nothing to do with the shooting
-
can we read minds now,how do you know or anyone else know he was trying to find a way in the house. please tell us how
-
can we read minds now,how do you know or anyone else know he was trying to find a way in the house. please tell us how
Apparently we are bc all these people are saying he could to be in fear I bodily injury and was just pissed off
Jiggling the door knob is generally a pretty good clue someone is trying to get into the house....
-
Apparently we are bc all these people are saying e could to be in fear I bodily injury
Jiggling the door knob is generally a pretty good clue someone is trying to get into the house....
no ,you said he was trying to find another way in,how do you know that .for all you know he could be looking for his cat he had when he was a kid.post a link where you read this
-
He wasn't on the porch he was on the side of the house where the old man had wandered to still trying to find a way into the house from what I read.
I agree that the previous situation with the man has little to do with the shooting thy night just like legally him leaving his house had nothing to do with the shooting
Respectfully, I think that hurts his case even more. I didn't see the location in the article I read.
If he got on his feet and traveled 20 feet in pursuit of an unarmed old man and shot him... outside in the side yard... that's even worse for his cause. If he was trying to pre-emptively prevent the man from looking for another entrance, that's some weak soup for a defense case lol.
"He jiggled handle and left my porch... I decided to go outside and subdue him, since I knew he wasn't trying to leave, but rather I somehow knew his plan to find another entrance. It's looking less and less like a legit "I was scared" shoot, and more and more of a "some dude that's been terrorizing us for weeks was going to get away so I chased him down."
Is that what happened? After 10 minutes of waiting for police to arrive - dude and his dogs were finally leaving? And this dude, pissed the cops weren't there yet, didnt want the person knocking to get away?
tony, side yard makes plenty of sense. Didn't want him getting away. No need to face the dude for 10 minutes - UNTIL HE IS LEAVING? And "maybe he was looking for another entrance" is weak shit lol.
-
no ,you said he was trying to find another way in,how do you know that .for all you know he could be looking for his cat he had when he was a kid.post a link where you read this
yes he could have been looking for his lost imaginary cat...on the side of the house he was trying to get in to
-
Respectfully, I think that hurts his case even more. I didn't see the location in the article I read.
If he got on his feet and traveled 20 feet in pursuit of an unarmed old man and shot him... outside in the side yard... that's even worse for his cause. If he was trying to pre-emptively prevent the man from looking for another entrance, that's some weak soup for a defense case lol.
"He jiggled handle and left my porch... I decided to go outside and subdue him, since I knew he wasn't trying to leave, but rather I somehow knew his plan to find another entrance. It's looking less and less like a legit "I was scared" shoot, and more and more of a "some dude that's been terrorizing us for weeks was going to get away so I chased him down."
Is that what happened? After 10 minutes of waiting for police to arrive - dude and his dogs were finally leaving? And this dude, pissed the cops weren't there yet, didnt want the person knocking to get away?
tony, side yard makes plenty of sense. Didn't want him getting away. No need to face the dude for 10 minutes - UNTIL HE IS LEAVING? And "maybe he was looking for another entrance" is weak shit lol.
I know you do bro, youre an idiot and I would expect nothing else
-
yes he could have been looking for his lost imaginary cat...on the side of the house he was trying to get in to
There is no evidence he was "looking for another way to get in". That's a pretty big step to take... He could have been leaving. You cannot shoot someone for standing in the side yard because you think they're looking for a way to get in.
The more I learn about the story, the worse this shooter looks. He unlocked door, walked down porch into front yard, and had to go into side yard to shoot this guy? LOL Self-defense and feared for his safety looking worse and worse.
-
There is no evidence he was "looking for another way to get in". That's a pretty big step to take... He could have been leaving. You cannot shoot someone for standing in the side yard because you think they're looking for a way to get in.
The more I learn about the story, the worse this shooter looks. He unlocked door, walked down porch into front yard, and had to go into side yard to shoot this guy? LOL Self-defense and feared for his safety looking worse and worse.
theres no evidence hendrix was angry, frustrated or had blood lust like you say either....
-
theres no evidence hendrix was angry, frustrated or had blood lust like you say either....
but i'm full of shit, and you're just thinking creatively? ;D
-
but i'm full of shit, and you're just thinking creatively? ;D
Wow irony goes over a lot of people's heads here doesn't it...
-
Answer the question ozmo
Do you get that he doesn't have to be in actual danger?
You answer the questions I have been asking you.
Do you get a reasonable man wouldnt see himself in imminent danger or death in all 3 parts? And that the fact he left his house speaks volumes to that?
Danger is another subjective term.
-
if we apply the knowledge gained after the fact he was never in imminent danger of death or bodily injury.
NOT THAT IT MATTERS B/C THATS NOT THE STANDARD OF LAW, BUT IF YOU WANT TO TRY AND SAY IT IS GO AHEAD.
To many articles and posts including numerous ones in this thread that specifically say otherwise but if you want to believe it go ahead bro.
We are not applying knowledge gained after the fact.
Are you a reasonable man tony?
Do you believe yourself to be in imminent danger, danger death or bodily injury enough to justify you shooting a person who is knocking at your door at 4am and jiggling the handle?
Ask you self the same question if you go outside and leave your wife Alone
Ask you self the same question If a that man doesn't answer you and starts walking towards keeping in mind you don't see a weapon in hand and he never tried to force entry.
And keep in mind as reasonable person, if you are ;), you already stated you would have stayed inside.
-
The man didn't fear for his life. Yes, I wasn't there. But if any of us has to bet the rent, we'd probably believe he was a lot of things - angry, scared, confused, frustrated - but "fear for his life", no, probably not.
I still haven't heard anyone give the justification for why he shot.
Forcible felony? No.
Fear for his life? No.
Entering home/castle doctrine? Nope, that shit sailed... dude left porch and had gotten to side yard.
Stand your ground? Oh goodness no, he was walking away and dude had to walk from porch to side yard to confront.
Guys - What is the legal reason for capping this guy?
-
We are not applying knowledge gained after the fact.
Are you a reasonable man tony?
Do you believe yourself to be in imminent danger, danger death or bodily injury enough to justify you shooting a person who is knocking at your door at 4am and jiggling the handle?
Ask you self the same question if you go outside and leave your wife Alone
Ask you self the same question If a that man doesn't answer you and starts walking towards keeping in mind you don't see a weapon in hand and he never tried to force entry.
And keep in mind as reasonable person, if you are ;), you already stated you would have stayed inside.
Tony has it right in this thread.
Yes, I think if a strange man shows up my door, threatening my wife, and a couple weeks later someone shows up at my house at 4 a.m. and twice tries to open my front door, my wife is terrified, the police don't immediately arrive, and the man approaches me, on my property, and fails to respond to commands, I would consider myself in imminent danger, sufficient to use deadly force.
Even without their recent history (someone showing up at their house looking for the fiancé), it's reasonable to assume someone who shows up at your house at 4 a.m. and twice tries to open your front door has bad intentions. It's also reasonable to assume the person might be on drugs.
There is more than one reasonable response. Staying in the house and waiting for the police would have been reasonable. Opening your own front door, and stepping out onto your own property is also reasonable.
-
No becuase if you truley feel you are danger then you stay in the house where it is safe. Where there is no forced entry.
You both have it wrong
-
No becuase if you truley feel you are danger then you stay in the house where it is safe. Where there is no forced entry.
You both have it wrong
Or if the police take 16 minutes to arrive, and someone tries to enter your house both before and after you call 911, and your previously threatened fiancé is terrified, you leave your house and step out onto your own property to protect your fiancé. Both staying inside and leaving the house were reasonable responses.
-
if the shoot wasn't legal after 1 minute, it wasn't legal after 16 minutes.
This argument of "justifiable fatigue" is laughable.
I keep hearing all these reasons trying to excuse it - But someone else knocked on his door, but he was new in neighborhood, but he was tired of waiting for police...it's weak soup.
This dude was scared but shot when he really didn't have to - can we alll agree on that?
-
the shooter fucked up, he knows it and everyone on here knows it.he was crying like a baby when he found out what he did.
-
the shooter fucked up, he knows it and everyone on here knows it.he was crying like a baby when he found out what he did.
was he really crying afterwards? Can't blame him. My brother shot a dude and handled all the interviews that night... walked next door and puked for about a minute straight. Can't predict how it'll hit people.
Sounds like he was tired of waiting for police, tired of someone bothering them. Tired of feeling helpless. he wanted to take the power back.
I'm sure it's been a nightmare for him. But it's also a nightmare for the family of the old man who was shot for being lost in someone else's yard.
-
Oz and 240 have done a good job, and have made me think about it, hard, but it's tough to ask the person not to be scared. The fact that he's on his own property, in the middle of the night, really casts things in his favor. Perhaps he's a squirrel of a man, or maybe he was anxious to "prove" himself to his girl, I don't know. But this should teach everyone to keep their loved ones close.
Still would be VERY INTERESTING to know what he said during the process, and what he's said, since.
-
the shooter fucked up, he knows it and everyone on here knows it.he was crying like a baby when he found out what he did.
He was crying because he shot a defenseless elderly man with Alzheimer's. He'd probably be a sociopath if he wasn't emotional after finding who the guy was.
But none of that has anything to do with his state of mind when he pulled the trigger.
-
Still would be VERY INTERESTING to know what he said during the process, and what he's said, since.
Yes!
1) was there an ounce of anger/punishment/taking law into his own hands, when he left to go outside?
2) were there any contradictions in his story in the interviews that followed, or did he lawyer up?
-
He was crying because he shot a defenseless elderly man with Alzheimer's. He'd probably be a sociopath if he wasn't emotional after finding who the guy was.
But none of that has anything to do with his state of mind when he pulled the trigger.
your right that's exactly what he did,now you have to pay the consequences
-
your right that's exactly what he did
As if that was ever a question. After the fact.
-
what,s funny is all the gun nuts come and back this idiot,then it's actions from idiots like him that get gun laws changed . then the all cry :D :D :D :D
-
You can be a car lover - but be very much against street drag racing.
You can be a gun lover - but be very much against reckless gun use.
There's a word... Hendrix was reckless. Emotion and a lack of logic made him run into a gunfight instead of just waiting for the police. The arguments used to justify it almost seem far-left liberal. "He was scared, maybe the old man was looking for another window, the police were too slow..." total libtalk lol.
-
BTW, 240, I liked that statement similar to "fear keeps him inside, anger puts him outside". Nice little bite to it.
-
Or if the police take 16 minutes to arrive, and someone tries to enter your house both before and after you call 911, and your previously threatened fiancé is terrified, you leave your house and step out onto your own property to protect your fiancé. Both staying inside and leaving the house were reasonable responses.
Not in the context of being scared enough to use justifiable force. Like 240 said, fear keeps you inside and anger puts you outside.
Just a note, to be clear i never said he wSnt or shouldnt be scared. Its a matter of degree and what a reasonable person would do.
-
Not in the context of being scared enough to use justifiable force. Like 240 said, fear keeps you inside and anger puts you outside.
Just a note, to be clear i never said he wSnt or shouldnt be scared. Its a matter of degree and what a reasonable person would do.
I can't wait to hear the 911 tape and interviews.
I bet it went from "I can shoot him on my property, right?" the first night, to "I feared for my life and he made a sudden move and it looked like a weapon and I fired to protect myself" the next morning after talking to his lawyer lol.
-
Not in the context of being scared enough to use justifiable force. Like 240 said, fear keeps you inside and anger puts you outside.
Just a note, to be clear i never said he wSnt or shouldnt be scared. Its a matter of degree and what a reasonable person would do.
What you and 240 refuse to acknowledge is its not if he was in fear of bodily harm when he left the house
-
Not in the context of being scared enough to use justifiable force. Like 240 said, fear keeps you inside and anger puts you outside.
Just a note, to be clear i never said he wSnt or shouldnt be scared. Its a matter of degree and what a reasonable person would do.
I disagree. You can be afraid and still take steps to protect your family, which could include stepping out on your own property. Being afraid doesn't mean you have to cower in the corner.
By the same taken, leaving the house doesn't show the guy was angry. That's just an invented "fact."
-
I disagree. You can be afraid and still take steps to protect your family, which could include stepping out on your own property. Being afraid doesn't mean you have to cower in the corner.
By the same taken, leaving the house doesn't show the guy was angry. That's just an invented "fact."
To be fair, without anything else attached to it, I'd have to agree that it doesn't necessarily show anger.
-
I disagree. You can be afraid and still take steps to protect your family, which could include stepping out on your own property. Being afraid doesn't mean you have to cower in the corner.
By the same taken, leaving the house doesn't show the guy was angry. That's just an invented "fact."
It suggests that he wasnt afraid of imminent death or danger. Thqt he felt his wife would be safe enough in the home alone which in turn means he felt safe enough too.
I agree about the anger thing. It just sounds good, but it also suggests that him being afrAid isnt a fact either
-
What you and 240 refuse to acknowledge is its not if he was in fear of bodily harm when he left the house
How do you figure?
-
We are not applying knowledge gained after the fact.
Are you a reasonable man tony?
Do you believe yourself to be in imminent danger, danger death or bodily injury enough to justify you shooting a person who is knocking at your door at 4am and jiggling the handle?
Ask you self the same question if you go outside and leave your wife Alone
Ask you self the same question If a that man doesn't answer you and starts walking towards keeping in mind you don't see a weapon in hand and he never tried to force entry.
And keep in mind as reasonable person, if you are ;), you already stated you would have stayed inside.
I personally would not have gone outside but as it was legal to go outside that is not part of what will be put up to the reasonable person standard.
Ive explained this to you numerous times but it still is eluding you somehow.
-
How do you figure?
b/c all of the components of the shooting were not present when he went outside.
They are two seperate acts even though I know you want to believe they are the same. If the old man was still at the door and he opened it and shot him then you could argue that he didnt fear that bodily injury was imminent.
Fact is at the time he went outside he didnt have to be afraid of bodily injury b/c there was nobody for him to perceive bodily injury from....
I answered your question now you answer mine Oz, you are in the same situation and your outside (FOR WHATEVER REASON). You come up on a guy with two dogs one of which is a rotti. You tell him to identify himself and he doesnt, instead he begins walking toward you.
Do you think it reasonable to feel that the person has bad intent?
-
I personally would not have gone outside but as it was legal to go outside that is not part of what will be put up to the reasonable person standard.
Ive explained this to you numerous times but it still is eluding you somehow.
It does. A reaaonable peson who believes he is in imminent danger or death doesnt leave his wife alone or the saftey of his house
Tony, i am out and about, i will get to your last post later. Thanks
-
Just read the question you asked me.
Answer: Reasonable to susspect it, not reasonable to believe fully. I would be afraid, but so much becuase i have a gun, i would not immidiatly shot the guy. I would back away. Issue warning shots in the air or atthe ground. Shottin him would be my absolute last resort.
This idiot made it his second resort.
-
It does. A reaaonable peson who believes he is in imminent danger or death doesnt leave his wife alone or the saftey of his house
Tony, i am out and about, i will get to your last post later. Thanks
i agree, but he didnt have to be in imminent danger when he left the house....
dont worry bro im done, its obvious you arent going to come to a realization the law is written a certain way and we will all know soon enough what happens to this guy.
-
Just read the question you asked me.
Answer: Reasonable to susspect it, not reasonable to believe fully. I would be afraid, but so much becuase i have a gun, i would not immidiatly shot the guy. I would back away. Issue warning shots in the air or atthe ground. Shottin him would be my absolute last resort.
This idiot made it his second resort.
I can agree with you on the backing away part but per the law you do not have a duty to back away. So him staying there was again perfectly legal just as it was perfectly legal for him to go outside.
-
i agree, but he didnt have to be in imminent danger when he left the house....
dont worry bro im done, its obvious you arent going to come to a realization the law is written a certain way and we will all know soon enough what happens to this guy.
Yeah pretty curious about the outcome. Looks like he wont get charged. My thinking is the longer it takes the less chance he has of getting charged.
I see the points you are making. For me, based on the things i pointed out it doesnt fit. Like i said, breaking in the window or forced entry or weapon i would completely agree.
-
Yeah pretty curious about the outcome. Looks like he wont get charged. My thinking is the longer it takes the less chance he has of getting charged.
I see the points you are making. For me, based on the things i pointed out it doesnt fit. Like i said, breaking in the window or forced entry or weapon i would completely agree.
iono I kinda think the longer it takes to more the DA is putting together a case against him...who knows
-
You haven't exactly been the most credible source in this thread. You claimed the police talked to the man earlier in the day, which is false.
You also claimed Hendrix had already been charged, which is also false.
There are a gadzillion articles out there with conflicting information.
My understanding is that the decision had already been made to charge him.
-
I know it was his fiancé, which is what I've said. I was talking about my own situation.
Egads. Americans are panicked. Maybe they don't know America has already fallen? :o
I think they secretly already do, ...they just don't want to admit it to themselves or anyone else.
They're hoping to wish it away and live the lie. If they're complicit in the charade, perhaps the powers that be will keep the charade going for just a little wile longer, ...before they forced into either the FEMA camps, or the FEMA coffins, ...or living like Jed Clampett & clan surviving off squirrels they hunted themselves. btw: how's your bow & arrow these days?
-
It suggests that he wasnt afraid of imminent death or danger. Thqt he felt his wife would be safe enough in the home alone which in turn means he felt safe enough too.
I agree about the anger thing. It just sounds good, but it also suggests that him being afrAid isnt a fact either
Not necessarily. I think when most normal people decide to pull a weapon to defend themselves there is an element of fear.
Also, it would be a much different situation if he wasn't on his own property.
-
There are a gadzillion articles out there with conflicting information.
My understanding is that the decision had already been made to charge him.
Where is the conflicting information showing the decision to charge him was already made?
-
I think they secretly already do, ...they just don't want to admit it to themselves or anyone else.
They're hoping to wish it away and live the lie. If they're complicit in the charade, perhaps the powers that be will keep the charade going for just a little wile longer, ...before they forced into either the FEMA camps, or the FEMA coffins, ...or living like Jed Clampett & clan surviving off squirrels they hunted themselves. btw: how's your bow & arrow these days?
You've been saying this for how many years already?
I have a bat, plus a very mean stink eye. I'm a sheep in wolves clothing. (Stole that from someone else.)
-
Not necessarily. I think when most normal people decide to pull a weapon to defend themselves there is an element of fear.
Also, it would be a much different situation if he wasn't on his own property.
Certianly an element of fear, but one thats based on zero forced entry, no active entry and thr police on thier way, and the logic that if a situation is truely dangerous with even the possibility of immient danger or death the last thing a really fearful reasonable man is going to do is leave thier wife, defenseless. Therefore the element of fear is not one a reasonable man would need to make him believe he needs to leave his house and if it was, which any reasonable man would agree, then leaving his wife alone is probably ok.
This man made a serious mistake and irresponsibly killed someone. Something a reasonable man would not do. I am a reasonable man. I would not in any part of this feel like i needed to shoot this guy the way hendrix did. I have outlined a resonable course of action a reasonable responsible man with a gun do. And some of you have agreed youd do some of those things too.
It is desperately sad and he should face consequences.
-
It suggests that he wasnt afraid of imminent death or danger. Thqt he felt his wife would be safe enough in the home alone which in turn means he felt safe enough too.
THIS.
He will have to convince police that his fear of this bad guy started the minute he walked down steps into side yard and saw a silhouette.
They will ask him if he frequently opens fire on shapes of people he cannot identify.
He'll say no, just this once, I promise it won't happen again, can we just forget this happened and move on?
-
Not necessarily. I think when most normal people decide to pull a weapon to defend themselves there is an element of fear.
Also, it would be a much different situation if he wasn't on his own property.
castle doctrine does NOT extend to your yard. I can stand in your yard singing songs or playing football or bouncing on a whoopee cushion.
You can't shoot me for it. You can't And you can't even claim you were startled, cause you knew I was out there and called police about it.
in yard, and inside house/car are VERY different things. If you kill an unarmed man for walking on your lawn (which is really what happened here), you're probably going to jail.
-
I can agree with you on the backing away part but per the law you do not have a duty to back away. So him staying there was again perfectly legal just as it was perfectly legal for him to go outside.
it was almost perfectly legal for the old man to walk in the grass. I mean, they could charge him with trespassing I guess.
-
it was almost perfectly legal for the old man to walk in the grass. I mean, they could charge him with trespassing I guess.
Agreed which is why this is what the sheriff called it...
-
It's not trespassing unless you tell the person to leave or get off your property.
He didn't, he told the man to identify himself, ...which in the dark, could be reasonably interpreted as an invitation to come forward.
Bottom line is this Iraqi war vet was scared of a shadow. No wonder it was such a shit storm over there.
-
I wonder if Hendrix has PTSD
-
Agreed which is why this is what the sheriff called it...
keep in mind, the sheriff's job is to get the DA a whole lotta evidence - NOT get Hendrix a little trophy for marksmanship.
Police will often put out friendly messages in the press to keep the shooter talking. Remember them patting zimmerman on the back as he walked them thru the crime scene for the 3rd time, burying himself with exaggerations.
We should NEVER jut believe what the police tell us - they are allowed to lie in order to get more info, and it's very effective. They will spend 1-3 weeks talking to him, recording everything - then they write down inconsistencies and hand it to the DA, who decides if they charge.
The police on the scene, the police speaking, the police doing interviews - they don't decide anything - They just try to punch holes in Hendrix's recollection. If the police are using the word 'trespassing', I bet Hendrix is too. IF IF IF the premise for his justification for shooting is trespassing, oh man, it's bad for Hendrix.
-
Certianly an element of fear, but one thats based on zero forced entry, no active entry and thr police on thier way, and the logic that if a situation is truely dangerous with even the possibility of immient danger or death the last thing a really fearful reasonable man is going to do is leave thier wife, defenseless. Therefore the element of fear is not one a reasonable man would need to make him believe he needs to leave his house and if it was, which any reasonable man would agree, then leaving his wife alone is probably ok.
This man made a serious mistake and irresponsibly killed someone. Something a reasonable man would not do. I am a reasonable man. I would not in any part of this feel like i needed to shoot this guy the way hendrix did. I have outlined a resonable course of action a reasonable responsible man with a gun do. And some of you have agreed youd do some of those things too.
It is desperately sad and he should face consequences.
I am a reasonable man. I don't know what I would have done.
And confronting an intruder on his own property was the opposite of leaving his fiancé defenseless.
The man made a reasonable mistake.
-
Its not, becuase for you to leave the house you have to reasonably believe she is safe. Which means you were safe. Or if you felt that threatened why would you leave your house thats not being forcibly broken into?
-
Its not, becuase for you to leave the house you have to reasonably believe she is safe. Which means you were safe. Or if you felt that threatened why would you leave your house thats not being forcibly broken into?
He could have believed she was safe, or believed they were both in danger from the intruder. He took the more aggressive approach, on his own property. Nothing wrong with that.
-
He could have believed she was safe, or believed they were both in danger from the intruder. He took the more aggressive approach, on his own property. Nothing wrong with that.
Not saying there is something wrong with what he did in leaving the house, what i am saying is that his actions indicate his level of fear. If he really feared for thier lives why leave a safe house thats not being forced into with police on thr way, and a gun in your possession? Reasonable people who think hendrix is not guilty have said they would have stayed inside too.
-
Not saying there is something wrong with what he did in leaving the house, what i am saying is that his actions indicate his level of fear. If he really feared for thier lives why leave a safe house thats not being forced into with police on thr way, and a gun in your possession? Reasonable people who think hendrix is not guilty have said they would have stayed inside too.
Reasonable people also think leaving his house, but staying on his own property, under the circumstances was reasonable. I guess we could say reasonable minds disagree? :)
-
Very reasonable, but not if he is really fearful of imminent harm or death. Thats why leaving the house is very telling of his state of mind in terms of degree of fear.
-
I am a reasonable man. I don't know what I would have done.
You dont know if you would have opened the door to venture into the darkness with a gun to face a stranger, knowing full well the police were minutes away and the person would have to break a door to reach you?
LOL... you may want to rethink strategies and prepare. We should always have a pretty good idea of what we would do in situation A or B or C. Just winging it when it comes to life or death things like this is how people get shot. Stay safe FIRST. Worry about some dude and his barking dogs stealing the garden hose second.
Seriously, everyone here should think what they'd do in these various scenarios. If anyone here looks at the clusterfck that became Joe Hendrix' night and still says "Hey, if it happened to me, I might leave safety, ignore police coming and just fire 4 bullets into the silhouette" then, well, lol...
-
You dont know if you would have opened the door to venture into the darkness with a gun to face a stranger, knowing full well the police were minutes away and the person would have to break a door to reach you?
LOL... you may want to rethink strategies and prepare. We should always have a pretty good idea of what we would do in situation A or B or C. Just winging it when it comes to life or death things like this is how people get shot. Stay safe FIRST. Worry about some dude and his barking dogs stealing the garden hose second.
Seriously, everyone here should think what they'd do in these various scenarios. If anyone here looks at the clusterfck that became Joe Hendrix' night and still says "Hey, if it happened to me, I might leave safety, ignore police coming and just fire 4 bullets into the silhouette" then, well, lol...
::) We can't all be dummies walking through neighborhoods with loaded weapons harassing strangers.
-
I do wonder what the guy's said about his yard lights, and whether or not it occurred to him to use them, as you can be sure he was asked.
-
::) We can't all be dummies walking through neighborhoods with loaded weapons harassing strangers.
hey, some of us are built for this shit, and some of us are not.
be thankful that men like me & zimmerman are keeping the streets safe. ;D
-
hey, some of us are built for this shit, and some of us are not.
be thankful that men like me & zimmerman are keeping the streets safe. ;D
Yes, some people like you are built to be a menace (which is exactly how I'd describe a gang of punks with guns harassing people). Glad I don't live in your neighborhood.
-
Yes, some people like you are built to be a menace (which is exactly how I'd describe a gang of punks with guns harassing people). Glad I don't live in your neighborhood.
the gang of punks was actually mostly veterans protecting their property - much like Hendrix.
But we didn't shoot - we let the police handle people. We didn't make tragic mistakes like firing blindly into bushes.
-
I think a good question for this thread would be who would do exactly what Hendrix did?
-
I think a good question for this thread would be who would do exactly what Hendrix did?
and thus the problem you have with reconciling your opinion with the law.
hendrix's actions prior to encountering the old man dont weigh on the reasonable man standard...but you for whatever reason believe it does.
Id like to see your citations to show why you believe the way you do.
-
the gang of punks was actually mostly veterans protecting their property - much like Hendrix.
But we didn't shoot - we let the police handle people. We didn't make tragic mistakes like firing blindly into bushes.
Embellishing again? Now it was "mostly" veterans. Right.
-
I think a good question for this thread would be who would do exactly what Hendrix did?
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.
-
I think a good question for this thread would be who would do exactly what Hendrix did?
that's a great question
i'll go first, would have called 911 then would have waited in the house for the police with my gun and if he broke in i'd probably shoot him
-
Embellishing again? Now it was "mostly" veterans. Right.
dude, it was a 55+ park. Me and my brother were the only ones that young.
And never fear, there are people like me - willing to confront bad guys but with the self control not to blast them - that keep others safe.
-
dude, it was a 55+ park. Me and my brother were the only ones that young.
And never fear, there are people like me - willing to confront bad guys but with the self control not to blast them - that keep others safe.
No thank you. Like I said, a menace.
-
and thus the problem you have with reconciling your opinion with the law.
hendrix's actions prior to encountering the old man dont weigh on the reasonable man standard...but you for whatever reason believe it does.
Id like to see your citations to show why you believe the way you do.
It's not my opinion. It's a simple set of questions. What would a reasonable man do? For example of a man believes he is facing imminent danger or death why would he leave the safety of his home, when there is no forced entry, he has a gun and the police a on the way? Point is a reasonable man wouldnt feel like he is imminent danger given the facts he knew at the time otherwise he would have never left his wife undefended alone A house were some is trying to get in.
So answer the question, would you have done exactly what he did?
-
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.
It's not a hard thing to do. You simply put yourself in his situation only taking in account the facts he knew at the time.
Would You have done exactly what he did?
-
I think a good question for this thread would be who would do exactly what Hendrix did?
Bump
-
It's not my opinion. It's a simple set of questions. What would a reasonable man do? For example of a man believes he is facing imminent danger or death why would he leave the safety of his home, when there is no forced entry, he has a gun and the police a on the way? Point is a reasonable man wouldnt feel like he is imminent danger given the facts he knew at the time otherwise he would have never left his wife under ended alone Ina safe house.
So answer the question, would you have done exactly what he did?
and again you seem to have a problem understanding that HE DIDNT NEED TO BE IN DANGER OF BODILY HARM WHEN HE LEFT THE HOUSE.
you keep bringing up him leaving the home as proof he couldnt have believe he was in danger of imminent of bodily harm, the issue is he DIDNT HAVE TO!!!!
-
Oz youre a creating your OWN standard and then saying that b/c he doesnt pass it he is guilty.
The issue is your standard and the standard of law are different!!!!
-
It's not a hard thing to do. You simply put yourself in his situation only taking in account the facts he knew at the time.
Would You have done exactly what he did?
I don't know. I probably would have stayed in the house, but I'm not certain. And again, even if I said I would have stayed in the house (or ten people say so), that doesn't make staying in the house the only reasonable response.
-
and again you seem to have a problem understanding that HE DIDNT NEED TO BE IN DANGER OF BODILY HARM WHEN HE LEFT THE HOUSE.
you keep bringing up him leaving the home as proof he couldnt have believe he was in danger of imminent of bodily harm, the issue is he DIDNT HAVE TO!!!!
When did you think he needed to feel he was in danger to justify his action of killing a man? Or are you saying he didn't need to feel that either, he can kill when ever for what ever reason?
What are you saying?
-
Oz youre a creating your OWN standard and then saying that b/c he doesnt pass it he is guilty.
The issue is your standard and the standard of law are different!!!!
I am talking about what a reasonable man would do. Would you leave your wife if you felt there was imminent danger upon her?
-
When did you think he needed to feel he was in danger to justify his action of killing a man? Or are you saying he didn't need to feel that either, he can kill when ever for what ever reason?
What are you saying?
at the moment the shooting happend Oz
-
I am talking about what a reasonable man would do. Would you leave your wife if you felt there was imminent danger upon her?
Yes if leaving her meant confronting and disabling the threat.
-
I am talking about what a reasonable man would do. Would you leave your wife if you felt there was imminent danger upon her?
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?
Would you leave your wife if you felt there was imminent danger upon her?
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....
-
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Reasonable+person+standardhttp://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Reasonable+person+standard
Reasonable Person
A phrase frequently used in tort and Criminal Law to denote a hypothetical person in society who exercises average care, skill, and judgment in conduct and who serves as a comparative standard for determining liability.
The decision whether an accused is guilty of a given offense might involve the application of an objective test in which the conduct of the accused is compared to that of a reasonable person under similar circumstances. In most cases, persons with greater than average skills, or with special duties to society, are held to a higher standard of care. For example, a physician who aids a person in distress is held to a higher standard of care than is an ordinary person.
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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. :-\
-
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......
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!!!!
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
-
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...
-
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 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...
-
nothing in the news for a week. Are they gonna charge him?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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?
-
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....
-
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.
-
Wow...was looking at some stuff on this, and it is absolutely stunning how worthless our media has become. There are essentially no real reporters anymore. I don't know what you'd call it, but we're left with something that does NOT qualify as a news-reporting system. It is tragic.
-
We're living in a time when the information presented to us becomes increasingly muddled, while the information taken from us becomes finely sharpened.
-
2) there was a confrontation between the two men,
A dude visiting a home where his girlfriend lived shot a dude in the side yard for not obeying his command.
Only in Georgia lol...
Honestly, in Iraq, in battle, that's how it would go down. You locate the enemy unknown, you give an order to stop moving, and even if the language is different, if he advances, you triple tap him center mass and drop him. On the other side of the world, he'd be fine doing it. He was (probably) quite annoyed at police taking so long to arrive, went out there, and when the adrenaline kicked in, his training returned. He handled it very much like one would in field, right?
Maybe he's preparing the PTSD defense...which would throw the self-defense thing out the window. Once we hear the 911 tapes, self-defense may have sailed anyway.
it's long past "tragic mistake"... traveled into side yard to give orders, fired on a shadow that didn't listen, and he didn't even live there...
-
I want to know more.
-
Wow...was looking at some stuff on this, and it is absolutely stunning how worthless our media has become. There are essentially no real reporters anymore. I don't know what you'd call it, but we're left with something that does NOT qualify as a news-reporting system. It is tragic.
I like to think of the media voices as "shit stirrers".
They present the facts in a way that viewers are instantly swayed to choose a side. FOX will call him a heroic veteran that tragically fired while protecting his girlfriend from a home invasion. MSNBC will paint him as a bloodthirsty man with a new gun firing wildly into the bushes wearing an executioner mask while the old man cowered.
They design it so people are instantly tied to it - emotionally. People loved or hated zimmerman. Wasn't a lot of "eh, either way..." This story will be the same. People will end up defending Hendrix because they tie him to anti-obama, pro-gun fox news. People will end up attacking him because they tie him to gun idiocy, pro-obama point of view.
MOST OF ALL - they keep watching because they are now tied to it, emotionally. They want to see if their side wins :)
I dislike the dude before he fired without seeing what he was shooting at, and he left safety to do it. ANY time the police are en route, you let them do the job - they have training and tools and numbers and backup and the law on their side... this is just some sleepy, pissed dude screaming orders into a dark side yard at 2 am lol. Scared and confused with too little info and too much emotion, he reverted to training that was legal in Iraq and probably illegal here.
-
Man, if someone can't see the attempts at power-shifting in this country, then I don't know whether to envy that person, or despise that person, or what the fuck.
Really can't believe half the shit I see these days. It just kills me.
-
I like to think of the media voices as "shit stirrers".
They present the facts in a way that viewers are instantly swayed to choose a side. FOX will call him a heroic veteran that tragically fired while protecting his girlfriend from a home invasion. MSNBC will paint him as a bloodthirsty man with a new gun firing wildly into the bushes wearing an executioner mask while the old man cowered.
They design it so people are instantly tied to it - emotionally. People loved or hated zimmerman. Wasn't a lot of "eh, either way..." This story will be the same. People will end up defending Hendrix because they tie him to anti-obama, pro-gun fox news. People will end up attacking him because they tie him to gun idiocy, pro-obama point of view.
MOST OF ALL - they keep watching because they are now tied to it, emotionally. They want to see if their side wins :)
Seems to me, this is one of the most intelligent posts regarding the media that's ever been on this forum. Very nice, 240. Good base, right here.
-
When you think of the pure power of a sufficiently unified people, it shouldn't take much insight from there...
Common interests are seen as common interests FOR A REASON. From Straw Man to Coach, we share these ideas.
It takes quite the trickery bag to keep us sidetracked. Yet day in, and day out, we remain off course.
-
A dude visiting a home where his girlfriend lived shot a dude in the side yard for not obeying his command.
proof that they were not living there together or your a liar...
I guess we already know how this will turn out though....
-
proof that they were not living there together or your a liar...
I guess we already know how this will turn out though....
I was referring to a quote on this thread that said he kept another apartment and was just visiting. I'm sure if it comes down to that, their story will be that he claimed residence in order to be "more legal" on an already shaky shoot.
But,
If you want to say it's legal to shoot someone in the side yard "if you live there" but not if you are just visiting, then that's a whole new (and potentially interesting) debate!
Can I shoot someone for trespassing in my neighbor's yard?
Can I shoot someone at my GF's yard if I sleep over 1, 2 or 31 times per month? Interesting...
-
I was referring to a quote on this thread that said he kept another apartment and was just visiting. I'm sure if it comes down to that, their story will be that he claimed residence in order to be "more legal" on an already shaky shoot.
But,
If you want to say it's legal to shoot someone in the side yard "if you live there" but not if you are just visiting, then that's a whole new (and potentially interesting) debate!
Can I shoot someone for trespassing in my neighbor's yard?
Can I shoot someone at my GF's yard if I sleep over 1, 2 or 31 times per month? Interesting...
so you are lying once again....got it
thanks zimmerdousch 1.5
-
Myself, I think a jury would be inclined to view them as partners in their domestic environment.
-
Myself, I think a jury would be inclined to view them as partners in their domestic environment.
irrelvant as there is no evidence they werent living there together
-
irrelvant as there is no evidence they werent living there together
Tony, I'm saying that a jury would NOT be inclined to view their arrangement as some booty call, since the two are engaged, and presumably the woman, at least, is named on the the lease (on a newly-rented property). And by the way, every article I've seen so far has referred to it as "his property", so I'm not entirely convinced that he isn't on the lease, as well.
No matter WHAT the case is with his current legal residency, this was a domestic situation and Hendrix was rightfully trying to protect his fiance and himself. And, as the story stands right now, I agree with that idea.
-
Tony, I'm saying that a jury would NOT be inclined to view their arrangement as some booty call, since the two are engaged, and presumably the woman, at least, is named on the the lease (on a newly-rented property). And by the way, every article I've seen so far has referred to it as "his property", so I'm not entirely convinced that he isn't on the lease, as well.
No matter WHAT the case is with his current legal residency, this was a domestic situation and Hendrix was rightfully trying to protect his fiance and himself. And, as the story stands right now, I agree with that idea.
agreed and it still irrelevant
-
agreed and it still irrelevant
If you'll bother yourself long enough to read the thread, Tony, you will see that it was suggested that somehow Hendrix wasn't necessarily within his rights, since his residency there is apparently questionable.
Do you get that?
-
If you'll bother yourself long enough to read the thread, Tony, you will see that it was suggested that somehow Hendrix wasn't necessarily within his rights, since his residency there is apparently questionable.
Do you get that?
and if youll read the thread you will see that there is no reason to question whether or not he was a resident there.
it was a statement without any source of truth and parroted by a retard....
-
and if youll read the thread you will see that there is no reason to question whether or not he was a resident there.
it was a statement without any source of truth and parroted by a retard....
If he has a residence elsewhere, you can see where someone gets the idea. Right?
By the way, 24KT: Where did you get that info?
-
One of Westbrook's dogs, a rottweiller, had laid down on his body to protect him and had to be physically removed, the sheriff said.
Such a sad story.
-
If he has a residence elsewhere, you can see where someone gets the idea. Right?
By the way, 24KT: Where did you get that info?
not really as they just moved into the house a few days earlier I think the better assumption would be that their prior lease overlapped with their new one....
and convict where did you get that info?
-
not really as they just moved into the house a few days earlier I think the better assumption would be that their prior lease overlapped with their new one....
In that case, you could expect his name to be on the lease.
(But I haven't seen anything to say someone is trying to use this angle against him, anyway, except right here.)
and convict where did you get that info?
To be fair, there's no reason to believe she's ever been in any trouble. Not sure who came up with it in the first place, but it isn't good to spread stuff like that (and it is definitely unfair to her).
-
Something of interest: The sheriff that said he "had no doubt" Hendrix was fearful, is in fact a friend of Hendrix.
Doesn't necessarily mean anything, but he probably should have been more careful against offering quotes like that.
-
Something of interest: The sheriff that said he "had no doubt" Hendrix was fearful, is in fact a friend of Hendrix.
Doesn't necessarily mean anything, but he probably should have been more careful against offering quotes like that.
Disagree - I think the sheriff may have been coaxing Hendrix into a sense of false confidence. "We believe in you... keep coming in and re-explaining the situation...."
The moment the sheriff says "Oh yeah, he shot the fuccker and didn't have to", he lawyers up.
Also yes, I believe Hendrix was feeling some fear. But I feel fear when my belly gurgles and I'm 10 minutes from home. I feel fear when I see 2 dudes cross the street to intentionally be on my side. I feel fear when I have some d-bag eyeballing me in the grocery store. But not enough fear to shoot.
Hendrix will have to demonstrate that he feared for his life, bodily harm, SOMETHING to justify 4 bullets.
-
Disagree - I think the sheriff may have been coaxing Hendrix into a sense of false confidence. "We believe in you... keep coming in and re-explaining the situation...."
The moment the sheriff says "Oh yeah, he shot the fuccker and didn't have to", he lawyers up.
Also yes, I believe Hendrix was feeling some fear. But I feel fear when my belly gurgles and I'm 10 minutes from home. I feel fear when I see 2 dudes cross the street to intentionally be on my side. I feel fear when I have some d-bag eyeballing me in the grocery store. But not enough fear to shoot.
Hendrix will have to demonstrate that he feared for his life, bodily harm, SOMETHING to justify 4 bullets.
The two had a friendly history prior to this event, is what I'm saying.
-
Disagree - I think the sheriff may have been coaxing Hendrix into a sense of false confidence. "We believe in you... keep coming in and re-explaining the situation...."
The moment the sheriff says "Oh yeah, he shot the fuccker and didn't have to", he lawyers up.
Also yes, I believe Hendrix was feeling some fear. But I feel fear when my belly gurgles and I'm 10 minutes from home. I feel fear when I see 2 dudes cross the street to intentionally be on my side. I feel fear when I have some d-bag eyeballing me in the grocery store. But not enough fear to shoot.
Hendrix will have to demonstrate that he feared for his life, bodily harm, SOMETHING to justify 4 bullets.
it sounds like he pretty much lawyered up right away
-
it sounds like he pretty much lawyered up right away
Interesting. They can still get a nice statement from him later in the week with the lawyer present. A lot of lawyers WILL let him give responses of why he shot, hoping to concoct a clean enough story to avoid getting charged.
It'd be cool to hear the 911 call, to know if he lawyered up fast, or if he gave other statements in the days afterwards. He shot the dude in middle of night. No doubt he was up all night, called into work (assuming he works), slept a few hours, and they were ready to hammer him some more.
-
LOL tell the truth 240, you have a slight mental disability dont you
-
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.
Oh ya, I can see it now... :o I was confronted by a SHADOW, so I killed it dead ::)
-
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.
There is no indication Westbrook had any difficulty controlling himself.
Infact, it appears the only one having difficulty controlling himself was Hendrix.
Being misplaced or lost is not a reason to be murdered.
-
A dude visiting a home where his girlfriend lived shot a dude in the side yard for not obeying his command.
Only in Georgia lol...
Honestly, in Iraq, in battle, that's how it would go down. You locate the enemy unknown, you give an order to stop moving, and even if the language is different, if he advances, you triple tap him center mass and drop him. On the other side of the world, he'd be fine doing it. He was (probably) quite annoyed at police taking so long to arrive, went out there, and when the adrenaline kicked in, his training returned. He handled it very much like one would in field, right?
Maybe he's preparing the PTSD defense...which would throw the self-defense thing out the window. Once we hear the 911 tapes, self-defense may have sailed anyway.
it's long past "tragic mistake"... traveled into side yard to give orders, fired on a shadow that didn't listen, and he didn't even live there...
That's precisely what I was thinking. A jacked up "authoritarian type" inadequate at transitioning to civilian life. His action might have been permissible in an active war zone, but unacceptable in a civilized environment. I don't think the 911 tapes will reveal much. Hendrix never spoke with 911, only the girlfriend did, ...still it might yield some evidence that could be used against him... Hopefully.
-
Man, if someone can't see the attempts at power-shifting in this country, then I don't know whether to envy that person, or despise that person, or what the fuck.
Really can't believe half the shit I see these days. It just kills me.
Pretty messed up isn't it.
-
When you think of the pure power of a sufficiently unified people, it shouldn't take much insight from there...
Common interests are seen as common interests FOR A REASON. From Straw Man to Coach, we share these ideas.
It takes quite the trickery bag to keep us sidetracked. Yet day in, and day out, we remain off course.
With all the paid trolls sent out throughout the Internet to sow mischief and create divisiveness, not to mention all the smart meters dumbing people down, I'm surprised even more people aren't messed up in their thinking.
-
With all the paid trolls sent out throughout the Internet to sow mischief and create divisiveness, not to mention all the smart meters dumbing people down, I'm surprised even more people aren't messed up in their thinking.
You whack the irony mirror with a hammer each time you post.
-
Oh ya, I can see it now... :o I was confronted by a SHADOW, so I killed it dead ::)
LMFAO call it what you want convict, fact is there was a confrontation
-
If he has a residence elsewhere, you can see where someone gets the idea. Right?
By the way, 24KT: Where did you get that info?
I got it from the following AP article, from which many other news articles are created.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/suffering-alzheimers-ga-man-fatally-shot
It clearly states the 'SHE moved into HER new rental home.' and that ' Hendrix took a GLOCK handgun that he kept in his apartment, and brought it to his fiancée's home'
In addition to being a bellicose buffoon, it appears Tony has a reading comprehension problem as well. Infact, one could even say he appears retarded, given how slow he is.
-
So it wasn't his property? he wasn't renting it?
That throws a kink in some people's argument.
-
Something of interest: The sheriff that said he "had no doubt" Hendrix was fearful, is in fact a friend of Hendrix.
Doesn't necessarily mean anything, but he probably should have been more careful against offering quotes like that.
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
-
I got it from the following AP article, from which many other news articles are created.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/suffering-alzheimers-ga-man-fatally-shot
It clearly states the 'SHE moved into HER new rental home.' and that ' Hendrix took a GLOCK handgun that he kept in his apartment, and brought it to his fiancée's home'
In addition to being a bellicose buffoon, it appears Tony has a reading comprehension problem as well. Infact, one could even say he appears retarded, given how slow he is.
I definitely see how you came to the conclusion you did, 24KT. Thank you for that. (still don't think anyone is trying to use that angle against him, though, and I don't believe it would be a successful angle)
-
So it wasn't his property? he wasn't renting it?
That throws a kink in some people's argument.
Not mine. :)
-
So I just checked online and didn't see anything about Hendrix being charged. Jag, why did you say he had already been charged? Or that a decision has already been made to charge him?
-
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
I suppose in rural Georgia, it certainly isn't unheard of, that a Sheriff would share some history with a person that found himself in a situation like this.
-
Not mine. :)
But Beach, you don't really have much of an argument, and being that "he was on his property" was part of yours it weakens even more.
At the end of the day we have a man who shot some one for no good reason, something a reasonable man wouldn't have seen as a imminent threat of danger, death or injury.
the fact, if true, that that wasn't even his property shows just how much of a over eager, irresponsible man hendrix is. And it resulted in the shooting of an innocent man who was doing nothing wrong. Except maybe trespassing.
-
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.
That doesn't sound right at all.
I am not a lawyer, are you? Are you going to law school? I am not asking this to be a smart ass, just trying to add credibility to your POV or interpretation of law.
It would seem to me that if you include the events leading up to the shooting as reason to be fearful enough to justify Hendrix's actions, you must take into account all the events, not just the ones that lend support to POV of innocence or guilt.
-
But Beach, you don't really have much of an argument, and being that "he was on his property" was part of yours it weakens even more.
At the end of the day we have a man who shot some one for no good reason, something a reasonable man wouldn't have seen as a imminent threat of danger, death or injury.
the fact, if true, that that wasn't even his property shows just how much of a over eager, irresponsible man hendrix is. And it resulted in the shooting of an innocent man who was doing nothing wrong. Except maybe trespassing.
It doesn't matter if he was on the lease. Even if it was solely his fiancé's apartment, and she just moved into it, then obviously he was going to be moving into it after they got married, unless their wedding date is like five years from now. Really doesn't affect the analysis at all IMO.
I doubt he was just having a sleepover. :)
-
Seems to me, without any further information, the only potential angle on this guy would be to show that it is too unlikely, or too unreasonable, that he could have experienced such a level of fear as to do as he did. That's it.
Personally, I have a HUGE problem with the way Hendrix handled himself. He was thoughtless, mindless, all the way around.
I can only say that, if you're responsible for a person with dementia, and especially in a place like Georgia, make sure you are able to hear your door alarms no matter what, even if you're in deep sleep (as his wife probably was). Your loved one may be killed, otherwise. That's the reality.
-
My guess.... and only a guess...
They're talking with hendrix's attorney, trying to reach an agreement... suspended sentence, involuntary manslaughter, something like that... They don't wanna charge murder, but to do NOTHING is pretty weak too.
Smart play for everyone is to take a slap on wrist, suspended sentence, 2 years of probation and maybe counseling, and let everyone claim a win. This is a rental home in rural GA, not exactly rich folks here. Just agree to something minor that won't destroy his life, and get on with it.
-
Seems to me, without any further information, the only potential angle on this guy would be to show that it is too unlikely, or too unreasonable, that he could have experienced such a level of fear as to do as he did. That's it.
Personally, I have a HUGE problem with the way Hendrix handled himself. He was thoughtless, mindless, all the way around.
I can only say that, if you're responsible for a person with dementia, and especially in a place like Georgia, make sure you are able to hear your door alarms no matter what, even if you're in deep sleep (as his wife probably was). Your loved one may be killed, otherwise. That's the reality.
Its appalling. Hendrix actions are irresponsible and shows he shot the man with little or no reason to believe he was in imminent danger from death or injury.
My guess.... and only a guess...
They're talking with hendrix's attorney, trying to reach an agreement... suspended sentence, involuntary manslaughter, something like that... They don't wanna charge murder, but to do NOTHING is pretty weak too.
Smart play for everyone is to take a slap on wrist, suspended sentence, 2 years of probation and maybe counseling, and let everyone claim a win. This is a rental home in rural GA, not exactly rich folks here. Just agree to something minor that won't destroy his life, and get on with it.
I do not see how they can charge murder. The best that can be charged is involuntary manslaughter.
But they sure are taking their time
-
It doesn't matter if he was on the lease. Even if it was solely his fiancé's apartment, and she just moved into it, then obviously he was going to be moving into it after they got married, unless their wedding date is like five years from now. Really doesn't affect the analysis at all IMO.
I doubt he was just having a sleepover. :)
It seemed to affect it here:
Also, it would be a much different situation if he wasn't on his own property.
-
Its appalling. Hendrix actions are irresponsible and shows he shot the man with little or no reason to believe he was in imminent danger from death or injury.
His behavior doesn't make sense. There's something that doesn't connect between where he was, and where he ended up, doing what he was doing. Something is wrong.
It concerns me that he'd been friendly with the Sheriff, too, because it means he may have gotten unusual treatment. (Instead of trying to trick him into hanging himself, as is usual, did the Sheriff feel compelled to advise Hendrix in any way?)
-
His behavior doesn't make sense. There's something that doesn't connect between where he was, and where he ended up, doing what he was doing. Something is wrong.
It concerns me that he'd been friendly with the Sheriff, too, because it means he may have gotten unusual treatment. (Instead of trying to trick him into hanging himself, as is usual, did the Sheriff feel compelled to advise Hendrix in any way?)
If he has PTSD does his behavior makes sense?
And what unusual treatment did he get from the sheriff?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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/
-
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"
-
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
-
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.
-
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 (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?
-
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.
-
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 (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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 :)
-
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 :)
;D
-
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.
;D
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. 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
You've done a good job on this, Oz. You're right on the edge with it, for sure.
-
someone just email the fucking DA and let that prick know where all sitting here waiting...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Fear of an intruder trying to enter your house at 4 a.m. and/or trying to harm you or your loved one.
-
Fear of an intruder trying to enter your house at 4 a.m. and/or trying to harm you or your loved one.
Okay...then concern for his fiancee's safety should enter into it, without a doubt.
-
Obviously, the act of knocking is generally associated with the seeking of a response, so I wonder if either of them replied in any way.
-
Obviously, the act of knocking is generally associated with the seeking of a response, so I wonder if either of them replied in any way.
More associated with fear than anything else. Most people are in a dead sleep at 4 a.m., so being woken up by a doorbell and someone trying to open the door has to be startling.
-
More associated with fear than anything else. Most people are in a dead sleep at 4 a.m., so being woken up by a doorbell and someone trying to open the door has to be startling.
No doubt about it.
But it's said Westbrook knocked, which makes me wonder what, if any, response was directly given to that. Knocking is an attempt at communication, without question.
-
No doubt about it.
But it's said Westbrook knocked, which makes me wonder what, if any, response was directly given to that. Knocking is an attempt at communication, without question.
I didn't read the knocked part. I read he rang the doorbell and tried to open the door. But you have to consider that together with a guy showing up at the house, angry, a week or so beforehand.
-
I didn't read the knocked part. I read he rang the doorbell and tried to open the door. But you have to consider that together with a guy showing up at the house, angry, a week or so beforehand.
Yeah, I'd say that event played heavily into this. Seriously so.
I do believe this guy has PTSD or some severe mental problem involving his ability to control himself. Nothing else, but a level of stupidity that is simply unbelievable (defying all sense of self-preservation...that unbelievable), could explain his behavior.
-
Yeah, I'd say that event played heavily into this. Seriously so.
I do believe this guy has PTSD or some severe mental problem involving his ability to control himself. Nothing else, but a level of stupidity that is simply unbelievable (defying all sense of self-preservation...that unbelievable), could explain his behavior.
I have no idea if he has PTSD or a severe mental problem. Haven't seen any evidence of that.
-
I have no idea if he has PTSD or a severe mental problem. Haven't seen any evidence of that.
What would you call it?
-
But you have to consider that together with a guy showing up at the house, angry, a week or so beforehand.
I dunno about that.
If anything, that hurts his case. Introduces some serious motive. Takes away 100% fear and adds just that 1% of "angry at an unknown person from last week".
If any of this shooting was about "I'm tired of this shit happening" and not about "I'm in fear for my life with only the particulars of this incident".
-
What would you call it?
Fear.
-
Fear.
So you'd resist starting down any path that would say he acted wrongly (but not necessarily illegally, as he probably was legitimately fearful at the time he pulled the trigger)...but that he acted in a way that would suggest something is severely wrong with him.
-
So you'd resist starting down any path that would say he acted wrongly (and not necessarily illegally, as he probably was legitimately fearful at the time he pulled the trigger)...but that he acted in a way that would suggest something is severely wrong with him.
I don't think he did anything wrong or illegal. I think he should have stayed inside, but that's because I know the only threat was an elderly man with Alzheimer's. That's not information he had at the time.
I haven't seen anything to suggest he has something severely wrong with him.
-
I don't think he did anything wrong or illegal. I think he should have stayed inside, but that's because I know the only threat was an elderly man with Alzheimer's. That's not information he had at the time.
I haven't seen anything to suggest he has something severely wrong with him.
Is it fair to say, do you think, that the fears he would likely have outside, would be the same as the fears he would have inside?
-
Is it fair to say, do you think, that the fears he would likely have outside, would be the same as the fears he would have inside?
The fear was someone trying to enter his house and harm him and/or his fiancé. Same inside or outside.
-
The fear was someone trying to enter his house and harm him and/or his fiancé. Same inside or outside.
So we're talking about being shot, potentially by a gun the intruder may have, or even by his own gun, or stabbed...happening to either himself or his fiancee. Would you say that's the scope of realistic possibility?
-
So we're talking about being shot, potentially by a gun the intruder may have, or even by his own gun, or stabbed...happening to either himself or his fiancee. Would you say that's the scope of realistic possibility?
Shot, stabbed, punched, kicked, slapped, hit with a bat, robbed, raped, murdered, etc., etc. What else would you expect an intruder to do?
-
Shot, stabbed, punched, kicked, slapped, hit with a bat, robbed, raped, murdered, etc., etc. What else would you expect an intruder to do?
You're not saying that fear of being slapped should initiate an act of deadly force, are you?
-
You're not saying that fear of being slapped should initiate an act of deadly force, are you?
Dude. No. Just describing the various ways someone can be attacked.
-
Dude. No. Just describing the various ways someone can be attacked.
When thinking about a mentally healthy, reasonable person, who is armed and in such a situation as this, I'd like to know what scope of possibility he should consider, as it relates to fear.
-
I'm talking about specific, physical harm.
-
The specific ways someone can be attacked and injured or killed is not confined to some box. Nor does it really matter. I doubt most people lay awake thinking about the various ways they can be attacked in their home and on their property. When someone decides to keep a weapon for protection, it's to protect them from a threat, however that threat presents itself. What you're talking about is minutiae.
-
The specific ways someone can be attacked and injured or killed is not confined to some box. Nor does it really matter. I doubt most people lay awake thinking about the various ways they can be attacked in their home and on their property. When someone decides to keep a weapon for protection, it's to protect them from a threat, however that threat presents itself. What you're talking about is minutiae.
You wouldn't say that such self-protection laws cause it to matter, and very much so?
-
...he could fearfully imagine being run over by a bus the intruder was somehow concealing, but of course that would be an unrealistic fear. Right?
Seems to me there is a very small scope of possibility. Would you agree or disagree?
-
BTW: I believe the man was legitimately fearful when he shot Westbrook.
Right now, I'm referring to his mental health. That's it.
-
You wouldn't say that such self-protection laws cause it to matter, and very much so?
Don't understand what you mean.
-
...he could fearfully imagine being run over by a bus the intruder was somehow concealing, but of course that would be an unrealistic fear. Right?
Seems to me there is a very small scope of possibility. Would you agree or disagree?
Disagree, for the reasons I've already stated. There are a number of ways someone can be injured or killed.
-
BTW: I believe the man was legitimately fearful when he shot Westbrook.
Right now, I'm referring to his mental health. That's it.
I'm not talking about his mental health, because I haven't read anything to lead me to believe he had mental health issues.
-
Disagree, for the reasons I've already stated. There are a number of ways someone can be injured or killed.
So in the case of Hendrix: which of these should he have considered, as a healthy, reasonable person?
-
So in the case of Hendrix: which of these should he have considered, as a healthy, reasonable person?
None. As I indicated earlier, I don't think reasonable people lay awake at night envisioning the various ways they can be injured or killed.
-
None. As I indicated earlier, I don't think reasonable people lay awake at night envisioning the various ways they can be injured or killed.
So you'd say a reasonable person might be unaware of the potentiality of various threats, such as gunshot, etc.(?).
-
...trying to figure out what you mean.
-
So you'd say a reasonable person might be unaware of the potentiality of various threats, such as gunshot, etc.(?).
I say reasonable people don't worry about the various ways they can be injured or killed.
-
I say reasonable people don't worry about the various ways they can be injured or killed.
...but they become obligated to do that, if they're going to shoot someone in a way that is viewed as reasonable. Right?
-
...but they become obligated to do that, if they're going to shoot someone in a way that is viewed as reasonable. Right?
No. Where are you getting that from?
-
No. Where are you getting that from?
If a person isn't giving consideration for the potentiality of the perceived threat he is responding to, how can he say whether his act of deadly force is reasonable?
-
Will pick this up again soon, bro. Take care.
-
If a person isn't giving consideration for the potentiality of the perceived threat he is responding to, how can he say whether his act of deadly force is reasonable?
It depends on the circumstances. If the perceived threat is outside, in broad daylight, and the perceived threat is a gun, then the attacker should have something that looks like a gun. If the threat is fists, then the attacker wouldn't be holding anything.
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. It's the conduct that matters (for example, trying to open someone's door).
-
It depends on the circumstances. If the perceived threat is outside, in broad daylight, and the perceived threat is a gun, then the attacker should have something that looks like a gun. If the threat is fists, then the attacker wouldn't be holding anything.
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. It's the conduct that matters (for example, trying to open someone's door).
or walking towards after being told identify themselves with a gun pointed at them.
-
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. It's the conduct that matters (for example, trying to open someone's door).
Yes, you can't just shoot people in yards because you can't make out their hands.
or walking towards after being told identify themselves with a gun pointed at them.
Tony, suppose your dog runs into my yard.
Suppose I come outside with a shotgun and order you to the ground.
Then I start blasting if you don't obey.
That wouldn't be cool, not one bit. Nor would it be legal.
-
or walking towards after being told identify themselves with a gun pointed at them.
Still not justification nor grounds to use deadly force. No reasonable man would.
And if it's that dark they don't know there is a gun on them, nor is it soething a reasonable man would assume on both sides.
-
It depends on the circumstances. If the perceived threat is outside, in broad daylight, and the perceived threat is a gun, then the attacker should have something that looks like a gun. If the threat is fists, then the attacker wouldn't be holding anything.
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. It's the conduct that matters (for example, trying to open someone's door).
There is a huge difference between forcing entry and knocking othe door and jiggling the handle. That's why the article I posted talking about the Georgia law is relevant.
And it wast his property. He was visitor.
-
Yes, you can't just shoot people in yards because you can't make out their hands.
yea b/c thats exactly what happend here, hendrix on one of his nightly patrols stumbled upon a man in his yard and indiscriminately executed him
Tony, suppose your dog runs into my yard.
Suppose I come outside with a shotgun and order you to the ground.
Then I start blasting if you don't obey.
That wouldn't be cool, not one bit. Nor would it be legal.
you can troll better than this dumb ass, ive seen it...get on your game moron
-
Still not justification nor grounds to use deadly force. No reasonable man would.
And if it's that dark they don't know there is a gun on them, nor is it soething a reasonable man would assume on both sides.
heyyyyyy!!!!
look you finally get it that this is the moment when the reasonable man standard will be judged!!!!
I think you have a valid opinion here, I think someone who feels like it was reasonable has a valid opinion too...well just have to wait and see what the DA says
-
with the logic going on here it's pretty much ok to shoot anybody anytime if their on your land,just say you were scared
-
with the logic going on here it's pretty much ok to shoot anybody anytime if their on your land,just say you were scared
yup b/c thats exactly what happend here right libtard....
-
heyyyyyy!!!!
look you finally get it that this is the moment when the reasonable man standard will be judged!!!!
I think you have a valid opinion here, I think someone who feels like it was reasonable has a valid opinion too...well just have to wait and see what the DA says
I have been kind of saying that for a while and using it in my arguments with you. So I don't get it. Lol
I understand what you are saying with the reasonable man standard and just pretty much reworded my arguments to use that as a starting point. In law I guess it's not the same thing.
-
yup b/c thats exactly what happend here right libtard....
This is a pretty good debate topic. It also hasn't digressed too much into labeling and stereotyping political ideology fueled arguments usually go to.
-
I have been kind of saying that for a while and using it in my arguments with you. So I don't get it. Lol
I understand what you are saying with the reasonable man standard and just pretty much reworded my arguments to use that as a starting point. In law I guess it's not the same thing.
you have been KINDA doing this yes I agree.
The issue is you want to say that b/c he went outside it shows a reasonable man wouldnt fear for bodily harm.
Here you left that nonsense out as it doesnt play into the actual shooting.
-
This is a pretty good debate topic. It also hasn't digressed too much into labeling and stereotyping political ideology fueled arguments usually go to.
sorry Oz idiocy needs to be called out and the idea that he went and shot him just b/c he was on his land is about as fucking idiotic as it gets.
-
yup b/c thats exactly what happend here right libtard....
yep pretty much shake the door handle and you have it,so if anyone wants to kill someone invite them over your house shoot them in the yard and when the armed guards come throw in he shook the door handle :D :D
-
sorry Oz idiocy needs to be called out and the idea that he went and shot him just b/c he was on his land is about as fucking idiotic as it gets.
I agree. Just noting that's it's been a good debate overall.
-
you have been KINDA doing this yes I agree.
The issue is you want to say that b/c he went outside it shows a reasonable man wouldnt fear for bodily harm.
Here you left that nonsense out as it doesnt play into the actual shooting.
I still think it does. I think if they charge him they will cite it as part of their reasoning.
-
with the logic going on here it's pretty much ok to shoot anybody anytime if their on your land,just say you were scared
Also, they disobeyed orders which is seems private citizens are allowed to issue to one another.
-
Also, they disobeyed orders which is seems private citizens are allowed to issue to one another.
oh yeah I forgot that ,you have to give orders :D
-
oh yeah I forgot that ,you have to give orders :D
Also, they disobeyed orders which is seems private citizens are allowed to issue to one another.
you see what happens when this idiocy goes unchecked Oz.....
-
yep pretty much shake the door handle and you have it,so if anyone wants to kill someone invite them over your house shoot them in the yard and when the armed guards come throw in he shook the door handle :D :D
so your saying in your world this wouldn't work
-
or walking towards after being told identify themselves with a gun pointed at them.
Correct.
-
There is a huge difference between forcing entry and knocking othe door and jiggling the handle. That's why the article I posted talking about the Georgia law is relevant.
And it wast his property. He was visitor.
No, there is really no difference between someone knocking on your door and trying to open the door, twice, at 4 a.m. and forced entry. I think a reasonable person would believe someone is trying to forcibly enter their home if they're turning the door knob at 4 a.m.
Yes, it was his property, because he was staying with his fiancé. A visitor would have been a friend who lives someplace else wasn't getting married to her. I haven't heard anyone from law enforcement make an issue of this.
-
with the logic going on here it's pretty much ok to shoot anybody anytime if their on your land,just say you were scared
Nobody in this thread said that. Except you.
-
the forced entry part of things had ended.
Once a person attempts to "jiggle" door handle - then exits porch and walks into yard, he's no longer entering the home.
Sure, you can "suppose" what he would have done next, but that's not something to do.
-
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.
So here we discuss Hendrix, and what he, as a healthy, reasonable person should have processed, regarding what fears were reality-based: gun, knife, fists, bat.
Obviously, if he chooses to shoot someone (to death, no less) he is obligated to process this information, or at least appear as though he did so, and with reason, in order for it to be acceptable.
Would you disagree with anything, so far?
(Going to call it a day..will see you later, BB)
-
No, there is really no difference between someone knocking on your door and trying to open the door, twice, at 4 a.m. and forced entry. I think a reasonable person would believe someone is trying to forcibly enter their home if they're turning the door knob at 4 a.m.
Yes, it was his property, because he was staying with his fiancé. A visitor would have been a friend who lives someplace else wasn't getting married to her. I haven't heard anyone from law enforcement make an issue of this.
Yes there is, don't be ridiculous. A reasonable person would think someone is trying to get in the house yes, but forcing entry is a completely different thing, which includes picking the lock, prying the door open, breaking a window. It shows intent and is a clear cut action of breaking and entering.
It was not his property in ANY sense of the word. He was a visitor on someone else's property. Period. Just as ridiculous as saying jiggling the door and knocking is forced entry. lol
Quit the act lol. You assumed it was his property in the beginning and was wrong and used it to support your argument. Then after finding out it wasn't your are trying to make a argument that it was symbolically his property. He didn't own it, he's NOT on the lease, he's IS a VISITOR!
-
For those occasions when you might encounter an elderly Alzheimer's victim in your yard,
...or a 19 year old woman having car trouble and seeking assistance...
-
So here we discuss Hendrix, and what he, as a healthy, reasonable person should have processed, regarding what fears were reality-based: gun, knife, fists, bat.
Obviously, if he chooses to shoot someone (to death, no less) he is obligated to process this information, or at least appear as though he did so, and with reason, in order for it to be acceptable.
Would you disagree with anything, so far?
(Going to call it a day..will see you later, BB)
If you're asking me, again, whether he needed to try and determine what kind of weapon the person had, the answer, again, is no.
-
Yes there is, don't be ridiculous. A reasonable person would think someone is trying to get in the house yes, but forcing entry is a completely different thing, which includes picking the lock, prying the door open, breaking a window. It shows intent and is a clear cut action of breaking and entering.
It was not his property in ANY sense of the word. He was a visitor on someone else's property. Period. Just as ridiculous as saying jiggling the door and knocking is forced entry. lol
Quit the act lol. You assumed it was his property in the beginning and was wrong and used it to support your argument. Then after finding out it wasn't your are trying to make a argument that it was symbolically his property. He didn't own it, he's NOT on the lease, he's IS a VISITOR!
So a reasonable person thinks someone is trying to get into the house at 4 a.m., but it's not a forced entry in that person's mind until the intruder breaks a window, picks a lock, etc. That's not reasonable. In real time, a reasonable person being awaken from a dead sleep at 4 a.m. in their home isn't going to go through some sophisticated analysis of whether an intruder who is actually trying to open their front, repeatedly, is also trying to pick the lock, preparing to break the door down, etc. They're more likely to think the person trying to get into their home has bad intentions.
To say it isn't his property in any sense of the word is a pretty big overstatement. And to call him a visitor is absurd. I think the most you could say is he wasn't the "legal" owner of the property if his name wasn't on the lease (if rented) or deed (if owned). But that doesn't determine whether it was still "his" property. If he was splitting his time there, or living there, had his stuff there, and was getting married to the woman who lives there, then of course it was his place too. And why would he keep a gun at her house if he was just visitor? That really makes no sense. The facts that we know so far don't support your claim that he was just a visitor.
Let me ask you this: have you ever heard of a situation where a visitor keeps a loaded gun at someone else's place, especially if the gun was purchased for protection?
-
"Let me ask you this: have you ever heard of a situation where a visitor keeps a loaded gun at someone else's place, especially if the gun was purchased for protection? "
??? Many people take a gun with them everywhere they go. Even without a permit (in GA), it's legal in vehicles, any house you live in or visit (as long as cool with people that live there) and where you work as well.
Makes sense the dude would carry a pistol with him, and have it there.
-
So a reasonable person thinks someone is trying to get into the house at 4 a.m., but it's not a forced entry in that person's mind until the intruder breaks a window, picks a lock, etc. That's not reasonable. In real time, a reasonable person being awaken from a dead sleep at 4 a.m. in their home isn't going to go through some sophisticated analysis of whether an intruder who is actually trying to open their front, repeatedly, is also trying to pick the lock, preparing to break the door down, etc. They're more likely to think the person trying to get into their home has bad intentions.
To say it isn't his property in any sense of the word is a pretty big overstatement. And to call him a visitor is absurd. I think the most you could say is he wasn't the "legal" owner of the property if his name wasn't on the lease (if rented) or deed (if owned). But that doesn't determine whether it was still "his" property. If he was splitting his time there, or living there, had his stuff there, and was getting married to the woman who lives there, then of course it was his place too. And why would he keep a gun at her house if he was just visitor? That really makes no sense. The facts that we know so far don't support your claim that he was just a visitor.
Let me ask you this: have you ever heard of a situation where a visitor keeps a loaded gun at someone else's place, especially if the gun was purchased for protection?
Calling it "his" property is incorrect both legally and logically. Not much more to say on it. You are just reaching here.
If knocking on the door and jiggling the handled is forced entry Then it would be illegal. If the door was open and he walked in, it would be illegal entry or make trespassing. It's not until an act of forced entry is taken that it becomes forced entry and the resident of the home can defend themselves with deadly force that's what the Georgia law says. In this case, calling jiggling a door handle and knocking on the door forced entry is another way you are reaching.
-
Calling it "his" property is incorrect both legally and logically. Not much more to say on it. You are just reaching here.
If knocking on the door and jiggling the handled is forced entry Then it would be illegal. If the door was open and he walked in, it would be illegal entry or make trespassing. It's not until an act of forced entry is taken that it becomes forced entry and the resident of the home can defend themselves with deadly force that's what the Georgia law says. In this case, calling jiggling a door handle and knocking on the door forced entry is another way you are reaching.
Actually, calling him a visitor is reaching. It makes no sense that he bought a gun to protect her, leaves the gun at her place, but he doest actually reside there. But we're just going circles. Let's wait and see if law enforcement or the prosecutors believe he was a visitor. I haven't read any mention of that.
What you're missing is what is going on in the mind of the reasonable homeowner as things are happening. I think it's really unrealistic to think someone is going to make a distinction between an intruder trying to open the door an intruder trying to pick a lock, etc. What I see in this situation is fear and confusion, both of which were reasonable.
-
Actually, calling him a visitor is reaching. It makes no sense that he bought a gun to protect her, leaves the gun at her place, but he doest actually reside there. But we're just going circles. Let's wait and see if law enforcement or the prosecutors believe he was a visitor. I haven't read any mention of that.
What you're missing is what is going on in the mind of the reasonable homeowner as things are happening. I think it's really unrealistic to think someone is going to make a distinction between an intruder trying to open the door an intruder trying to pick a lock, etc. What I see in this situation is fear and confusion, both of which were reasonable.
No it isn't. There are different degrees of being a visitor, but no matter what your are still a visitor. It was her house, not his. He frequents the place, because it's his girlfriend. Legally he is not the owner hence it is NOT his property.
We are not going in circles, you are creating something that doesn't exist in the world: people who don't live together, who are not married, who aren't on the lease or the deed, becomin owners of property lol. Hilarious.
Oh yeah, BIG distinction:
someone knocked not he door and jiggled the handle......he stopped
Versus....Someone picking the lock, using a crow bar, breaking a window.
Are you seriously trying to tell there is no difference? Wait! You are! Lol
The dumb ass was confused, and he irresponsibly used his gun and accidentally killed someone.
The dumb ass, knew the cops were on thier way and nothing indicated there was forced entry.
Hendrix is a stupid person. Hendrix should do prison time for being such a dumb ass and irresponsibly killing someone. He should also pay some sort of financial restitution to the man's wife.
Also the wife should sue his ass.
-
"someone knocked not he door and jiggled the handle......he stopped
Versus....Someone picking the lock, using a crow bar, breaking a window."
Great point, ozmo. Big difference there.
More importantly - He had LEFT THE PORCH. He was in the side yard already.
-
"someone knocked not he door and jiggled the handle......he stopped
Versus....Someone picking the lock, using a crow bar, breaking a window."
Great point, ozmo. Big difference there.
More importantly - He had LEFT THE PORCH. He was in the side yard already.
A few months ago someone knocked on my door at about 11pm on a weekday. I was a little freaked and asked who it was and it was someone visiting my neighbor who mistakenly knock omy door. I thought about that today and wondered how scared I would be if it was like what Hendrix went trough. I would have been pretty scared and called the police. I don't own a gun. Got a couple of kbars though. Never would I have left the house.
But, maybe tony is right, maybe him going outside doesn't factor into this charge, we still have Hendrix shooting a unarmed man with no forced entry, only walking towards him. No way reasonable men feel so threatened they shoot 4 times chest.
-
No way reasonable men feel so threatened they shoot 4 times chest.
The fact the word "tresspassing" was used... that made me instantly think this was a case of Hendrix thinking the shoot was legal because they were trespassing in his chick's yard.
Maybe the police are letting him walk into that defense. Maybe they're letting him just keep right on saying he fired because the dude was trespassing. Maybe he thinks in GA, you're allowed to shoot someone for trespassing.
-
If you're asking me, again, whether he needed to try and determine what kind of weapon the person had, the answer, again, is no.
No, BB, that's not what I'm asking. I've stated my belief that Hendrix was appropriately fearful, so not sure why you'd say that.
Obviously, if the subject's hands are unseen, Hendrix (or any person in the same situation), wouldn't necessarily be able to determine that information before making a decision to shoot.
The person must, however, find himself appropriately fearful through sound reason. And in this case, healthy reasoning would call any or all of those things: gun, knife, bat, fists.
Are we together on this point?
-
So a reasonable person thinks someone is trying to get into the house at 4 a.m., but it's not a forced entry in that person's mind until the intruder breaks a window, picks a lock, etc. That's not reasonable. In real time, a reasonable person being awaken from a dead sleep at 4 a.m. in their home isn't going to go through some sophisticated analysis of whether an intruder who is actually trying to open their front, repeatedly, is also trying to pick the lock, preparing to break the door down, etc. They're more likely to think the person trying to get into their home has bad intentions.
To say it isn't his property in any sense of the word is a pretty big overstatement. And to call him a visitor is absurd. I think the most you could say is he wasn't the "legal" owner of the property if his name wasn't on the lease (if rented) or deed (if owned). But that doesn't determine whether it was still "his" property. If he was splitting his time there, or living there, had his stuff there, and was getting married to the woman who lives there, then of course it was his place too. And why would he keep a gun at her house if he was just visitor? That really makes no sense. The facts that we know so far don't support your claim that he was just a visitor.
It is NOT a big overstatement at all. It was NOT his property, in EVERY sense of the word.
He did NOT own it. His girlfriend rented it, while he maintained a separate apartment elsewhere.
His status that night was no more than a GUEST.
Let me ask you this: have you ever heard of a situation where a visitor keeps a loaded gun at someone else's place, especially if the gun was purchased for protection?
It has not been established why the gun was purchased, or if it was even purchased.
What has been established according to the AP wire release that you yourself posted, is that he kept his gun at his residence, which was a separate apartment from the home she rented.
And no, it is not unusual for a guest to bring a weapon into a home they were just visiting.
My ex brought his gun into my apartment all the time. mind you... I always made him unload it.
The gun went on the top shelf in the cupboard, while the bullets went elsewhere... this way, if he ever pissed me off bad enough, he'd have the time to get out the door and down the stairwell before I'd be able to get it loaded. :D
-
No it isn't. There are different degrees of being a visitor, but no matter what your are still a visitor. It was her house, not his. He frequents the place, because it's his girlfriend. Legally he is not the owner hence it is NOT his property.
We are not going in circles, you are creating something that doesn't exist in the world: people who don't live together, who are not married, who aren't on the lease or the deed, becomin owners of property lol. Hilarious.
Oh yeah, BIG distinction:
someone knocked not he door and jiggled the handle......he stopped
Versus....Someone picking the lock, using a crow bar, breaking a window.
Are you seriously trying to tell there is no difference? Wait! You are! Lol
The dumb ass was confused, and he irresponsibly used his gun and accidentally killed someone.
The dumb ass, knew the cops were on thier way and nothing indicated there was forced entry.
Hendrix is a stupid person. Hendrix should do prison time for being such a dumb ass and irresponsibly killing someone. He should also pay some sort of financial restitution to the man's wife.
Also the wife should sue his ass.
Ozmo this is silly. Even the reporters aren't making a distinction. From the most recent story I found: "Hendrix then went into the backyard of the home he rented in the Chickamauga area, confronted Westbrook and fired his handgun four times at the man, sheriff's officials said. No charges have been filed."
http://www.myfox28columbus.com/template/cgi-bin/archived.pl?type=basic&file=/shared/news/features/top-stories/stories/archive/2013/11/GDrQytVT.xml#.UrHSeZHDNuY
And now you're calling the woman his "girlfriend"? Was that just a typo?
Regarding someone trying to open another person's door at 4 a.m., I am saying there is no difference in the mind of a reasonable homeowner between someone trying to open a door at 4 a.m., twice, and someone trying to pick a lock, etc. How the heck is the homeowner supposed to know the person isn't trying to "pick the lock" when they're turning the door handle? That's just crazy. You cannot use hindsight to try and evaluate whether a person acted reasonably.
Also, you should slow your roll on this. Tony has been on the money. You've said stuff like this:
So if I am not actually in danger, but I feel like I am in danger then I am justified to use deadly force? Lol. I don't think so.
Is that how the law works? They a have a "standard for a reasonable person" and if that person feels they in danger they can legally use deadly force even if they are not?
Hahahahahaahah. Right. ::)
:-\
-
It is NOT a big overstatement at all. It was NOT his property, in EVERY sense of the word.
He did NOT own it. His girlfriend rented it, while he maintained a separate apartment elsewhere.
His status that night was no more than a GUEST.
It has not been established why the gun was purchased, or if it was even purchased.
What has been established according to the AP wire release that you yourself posted, is that he kept his gun at his residence, which was a separate apartment from the home she rented.
And no, it is not unusual for a guest to bring a weapon into a home they were just visiting.
My ex brought his gun into my apartment all the time. mind you... I always made him unload it.
The gun went on the top shelf in the cupboard, while the bullets went elsewhere... this way, if he ever pissed me off bad enough, he'd have the time to get out the door and down the stairwell before I'd be able to get it loaded. :D
Do you ever get tired of being wrong?
I've asked you several times in this thread, but let me ask again: what is your source for your statement that he has already been charged or a decision to charge him has already been made?
-
No, BB, that's not what I'm asking. I've stated my belief that Hendrix was appropriately fearful, so not sure why you'd say that.
Obviously, if the subject's hands are unseen, Hendrix (or any person in the same situation), wouldn't necessarily be able to determine that information before making a decision to shoot.
The person must, however, find himself appropriately fearful through sound reason. And in this case, healthy reasoning would call any or all of those things: gun, knife, bat, fists.
Are we together on this point?
No.
-
Some people believe they can shoot another person, in their yard, without seeing any kind of weapon or real physical threat. They think just being in the side yard - and of course, the shooter's word that Hendrix was walking - is adequate for shooting.
If a jury agrees with you, cool. I sure wouldn't want that kinda weak soup being the only thing on the menu for justification for shooting an old mute man.
-
Some people believe they can shoot another person, in their yard, without seeing any kind of weapon or real physical threat. They think just being in the side yard - and of course, the shooter's word that Hendrix was walking - is adequate for shooting.
If a jury agrees with you, cool. I sure wouldn't want that kinda weak soup being the only thing on the menu for justification for shooting an old mute man.
The lying liar just cannot help himself.
-
The lying liar just cannot help himself.
???
Mr Westbrook, a former Air Force pilot, had been left mute by advanced Alzheimer's Disease
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2515417/Homeowner-shot-mute-Air-Force-veteran-charged.html#ixzz2nqh4vNGu
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
-
Reminds me of was it biden, that was asking the handicapped man to stand up.
Or Ryan Seacrest trying to high five a blind guy.
Or Joe Hendrix trying to order a man who cannot hear to lay on the ground.
-
???
Mr Westbrook, a former Air Force pilot, had been left mute by advanced Alzheimer's Disease
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2515417/Homeowner-shot-mute-Air-Force-veteran-charged.html#ixzz2nqh4vNGu
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
::)
For reasons that are not clear, Westbrook left his home and started walking. A deputy sheriff noticed him along a road around 2:20 a.m. and stopped to ask what he was doing, Walker County Sheriff Steve Wilson said. Westbrook told the officer that he was gathering mail and then planned to return to his home up a hill. While Westbrook's answers were curt, nothing about the conversation alarmed the deputy.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ALZHEIMERS_FATAL_SHOOTING?SITE=VANOV&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
-
Reminds me of was it biden, that was asking the handicapped man to stand up.
Or Ryan Seacrest trying to high five a blind guy.
Or Joe Hendrix trying to order a man who cannot hear to lay on the ground.
You are a lying liar. :)
-
Do you ever get tired of being wrong?
I've asked you several times in this thread, but let me ask again: what is your source for your statement that he has already been charged or a decision to charge him has already been made?
I told you already. It was from a newspaper article. Unfortunately, I didn't save the link.
I wish I had saved the link, but I didn't, ...and I am not about to go searching through and reading every single article that has been written about this incident.
If the article was inaccurate, ...so be it.
-
I told you already. It was from a newspaper article. Unfortunately, I didn't save the link.
I wish I had saved the link, but I didn't, ...and I am not about to go searching through and reading every single article that has been written about this incident.
If the article was inaccurate, ...so be it.
lol. You didn't save the link?? So what happened to it? Internet gremlin ate it?
Why not just admit you made it up? The truth shall set you free. :)
-
A few months ago someone knocked on my door at about 11pm on a weekday. I was a little freaked and asked who it was and it was someone visiting my neighbor who mistakenly knock omy door. I thought about that today and wondered how scared I would be if it was like what Hendrix went trough. I would have been pretty scared and called the police. I don't own a gun. Got a couple of kbars though. Never would I have left the house.
But, maybe tony is right, maybe him going outside doesn't factor into this charge, we still have Hendrix shooting a unarmed man with no forced entry, only walking towards him. No way reasonable men feel so threatened they shoot 4 times chest.
That's why you should keep them in free storage. I don't think you can use them as weapons unless you can throw them like Bullseye from Daredevil, or like the "Card Ninja." :P
-
lol. You didn't save the link?? So what happened to it? Internet gremlin ate it?
Why not just admit you made it up? The truth shall set you free. :)
No, I didn't save the link. The article was shared by a friend in my Facebook feed, and unfortunately I was accessing Facebook via my iPad, using the Facebook app, so it doesn't show you the URL.
Since having posted my statement, and not being able to find the link, I have since discovered how to retrieve a URL from within the Facebook app, without losing your place in the newsfeed.
I didn't make it up.
Quite frankly, I'm not sure which is worse, ...the insult to my character, ...or to my intelligence.
One would have to be pretty stupid to make up such an easily verifiable or easily discountable lie.
I've done stupid things in my time, ...but I'm not THAT stupid.
-
No, I didn't save the link. The article was shared by a friend in my Facebook feed, and unfortunately I was accessing Facebook via my iPad, using the Facebook app, so it doesn't show you the URL.
Since having posted my statement, and not being able to find the link, I have since discovered how to retrieve a URL from within the Facebook app, without losing your place in the newsfeed.
I didn't make it up.
Quite frankly, I'm not sure which is worse, ...the insult to my character, ...or to my intelligence.
One would have to be pretty stupid to make up such an easily verifiable or easily discountable lie.
I've done stupid things in my time, ...but I'm not THAT stupid.
Meltdown. You'd never make anything up that could be easily refuted? You mean like this:
The shooting occured at 2:30am, HOWEVER, it was earlier in the day that the elderly man had his encounter with the police officer who suggested he go home because he was dressed inappropriately for the weather.
The encounter with the cop was at 2:30 a.m. and the shooting was 4 a.m. Why did you say something that could be so easily refuted?
Or how about the time you claimed to have an IQ higher than Albert Einstein? lol
-
Meltdown. You'd never make anything up that could be easily refuted? You mean like this:
WTF!? What meltdown? I simply explained what happened and why.
The encounter with the cop was at 2:30 a.m. and the shooting was 4 a.m. Why did you say something that could be so easily refuted?
It's called an error. I'm sure you've not only heard of them, but made many of them, and will make many more.
Or how about the time you claimed to have an IQ higher than Albert Einstein? lol
I never claimed to have an IQ higher than Einstein.
In a private message many years ago, McFarland asked me what my IQ was.
It was such an out of the blue question, i really didn't think anything of it, so gave him the number, and also added, that I thought the number was unimportant. Not realizing what a duplicitous and indiscreet son of a bitch he was, he went on to selectively divulge the contents of our conversation with others. At some point, someone else came in and said that was also Einstein's IQ. If that were the case, then Einstein, who was diagnosed as retarded as a child would barely have squeaked into Mensa, because that is the minimum requirement to get in, and for me, that was it's only significance to me.
There are plenty of people all over the world who have higher IQ's than Einstein. I never claimed to be one of them.
-
Ozmo this is silly. Even the reporters aren't making a distinction. From the most recent story I found: "Hendrix then went into the backyard of the home he rented in the Chickamauga area, confronted Westbrook and fired his handgun four times at the man, sheriff's officials said. No charges have been filed."
http://www.myfox28columbus.com/template/cgi-bin/archived.pl?type=basic&file=/shared/news/features/top-stories/stories/archive/2013/11/GDrQytVT.xml#.UrHSeZHDNuY
You tell me:
Is he is name on the lease?
Did he rent a separate apartment?
Either he lives at separate place and isn't on the lease or not. If not its NOT his property. PERIOD. He's a "guest" as Jags pointed out.
Are you just bringing up some article where says its his place to back peddle from the argument or what? reporters say all kind of shit. Its either his property or not. stop trying to make something that isn't there.
And now you're calling the woman his "girlfriend"? Was that just a typo?
yep.
Regarding someone trying to open another person's door at 4 a.m., I am saying there is no difference in the mind of a reasonable homeowner between someone trying to open a door at 4 a.m., twice, and someone trying to pick a lock, etc. How the heck is the homeowner supposed to know the person isn't trying to "pick the lock" when they're turning the door handle? That's just crazy. You cannot use hindsight to try and evaluate whether a person acted reasonably.
Have a someone go outside your house, knock on the door, ring the door bell and jiggle the door handle. Wait 1 minute then have them start raking the lock with a bobby pin which will simulate what's it like to pick a lock.
Seriously Beach are you just being daft on purpose here, because if you can't figure that out i don't know what to tell you.
Also, you should slow your roll on this. Tony has been on the money. You've said stuff like this:
:-\
I was saying you actually have to be in danger (defined as imminent death or injury) to justify the use of deadly force. Tony was saying that a reasonable man standard is applied. He provided some material on it. So i changed my argument starting from the POV of a reasonable man which results in the same outcome. A reasonable man doesn't shot a person 4 times in the chest who is NOT forcing entry nor is armed, not responding and walking towards him in that situation.
Now, understand, I asked Tony if he is a lawyer or is in Law school. He never answered. I don't think he is and i am not. The reasonable person thing makes some sense to me but ALSO we have the Georgia law cited about forced entry and using deadly force which weighs into this situation because Hendrix, if a reasonable person, doesn't feel he is in imminent danger of death and injury if there is NO forced entry.
-
That's why you should keep them in free storage. I don't think you can use them as weapons unless you can throw them like Bullseye from Daredevil, or like the "Card Ninja." :P
They are combat knives. So i don't know what you mean.
-
WTF!? What meltdown? I simply explained what happened and why.
It's called an error. I'm sure you've not only heard of them, but made many of them, and will make many more.
I never claimed to have an IQ higher than Einstein.
In a private message many years ago, McFarland asked me what my IQ was.
It was such an out of the blue question, i really didn't think anything of it, so gave him the number, and also added, that I thought the number was unimportant. Not realizing what a duplicitous and indiscreet son of a bitch he was, he went on to selectively divulge the contents of our conversation with others. At some point, someone else came in and said that was also Einstein's IQ. If that were the case, then Einstein, who was diagnosed as retarded as a child would barely have squeaked into Mensa, because that is the minimum requirement to get in, and for me, that was it's only significance to me.
There are plenty of people all over the world who have higher IQ's than Einstein. I never claimed to be one of them.
Dude I make mistakes all the time. What I don't do is just make stuff up, like you (and 240). What is the source for your claim that the cop encountered him earlier in the day and the shooting was 2:30 a.m.?
Regarding your IQ, you "never claimed to have an IQ higher than Einstein"? O Rly?
I was a finalist in a beauty pageant, I was twice elected to serve a constituency of 18,000+ across Canada, worked within budgets larger than Wasilla's, have an IQ of 160,
"Only approximately 1% of all the people in the world have an IQ higher than 135." "Albert Einstein (Physicist) 160"
http://www.cse.emory.edu/sciencenet/mismeasure/genius/research04.html
And your story is fabricated. It was you, unsolicited, who claimed your IQ was 160. I was the one who pointed out it was the same as Einstein. Why do you say things that are so easily refuted?
-
You tell me:
Is he is name on the lease?
Did he rent a separate apartment?
Either he lives at separate place and isn't on the lease or not. If not its NOT his property. PERIOD. He's a "guest" as Jags pointed out.
Are you just bringing up some article where says its his place to back peddle from the argument or what? reporters say all kind of shit. Its either his property or not. stop trying to make something that isn't there.
yep.
Have a someone go outside your house, knock on the door, ring the door bell and jiggle the door handle. Wait 1 minute then have them start raking the lock with a bobby pin which will simulate what's it like to pick a lock.
Seriously Beach are you just being daft on purpose here, because if you can't figure that out i don't know what to tell you.
I was saying you actually have to be in danger (defined as imminent death or injury) to justify the use of deadly force. Tony was saying that a reasonable man standard is applied. He provided some material on it. So i changed my argument starting from the POV of a reasonable man which results in the same outcome. A reasonable man doesn't shot a person 4 times in the chest who is NOT forcing entry nor is armed, not responding and walking towards him in that situation.
Now, understand, I asked Tony if he is a lawyer or is in Law school. He never answered. I don't think he is and i am not. The reasonable person thing makes some sense to me but ALSO we have the Georgia law cited about forced entry and using deadly force which weighs into this situation because Hendrix, if a reasonable person, doesn't feel he is in imminent danger of death and injury if there is NO forced entry.
I have no idea if his name was on the lease. That doesn't matter. That's really a dumb non-issue. Nobody is talking about it. I posted the article simply to show the media doesn't care if his name is on the lease. If law enforcement or the prosector makes this an issue, then you'll have obviously have a point. Until then, it's just message board nonsense.
The point of me showing you your prior comments is you were actually ridiculing Tony because he didn't agree with your belief that you have to actually be in danger to use deadly force. You're using the same kind of arguments here (ones that really don't make sense). I understand you changed your position, but I mean think about it: under your old position, which you all but called Tony stupid for not agreeing with, a person could not use deadly if force if someone was pointing an unloaded gun at them threatening to shoot them (and the person being threatened didn't know the gun was unloaded). That really makes no sense. You don't need to know the law to realize that's not a reasonable position.
You're doing the same thing with the whole intruder aspect. Trying to actually make a distinction between someone trying to open a door at 4 a.m., twice, and "picking a lock" is not reasonable, particularly when someone was at the house about a week or so beforehand. All I'm saying is you might want to pull back a bit.
-
They are combat knives. So i don't know what you mean.
Oh, ...my mistake. I often hear the word "kbars" as an abbreviated reference for something else entirely.
I really should have known better. :D
-
Dude I make mistakes all the time. What I don't do is just make stuff up, like you (and 240). What is the source for your claim that the cop encountered him earlier in the day and the shooting was 2:30 a.m.?
As I stated earlier, that was an error on my part. I thought the shooting occurred at 2:30am, and the encounter with the police occurred earlier in the day. It was an error. Capisce?
Regarding your IQ, you "never claimed to have an IQ higher than Einstein"? O Rly?
Really.
"Only approximately 1% of all the people in the world have an IQ higher than 135." "Albert Einstein (Physicist) 160"
http://www.cse.emory.edu/sciencenet/mismeasure/genius/research04.html
Well, if that is correct, then I guess it places me within the 1%.
Personally, I'd rather be in the 1% that Fed Policies and Wall Street cater to, but hey, at least I'm in the 1% :D
And your story is fabricated. It was you, unsolicited, who claimed your IQ was 160. I was the one who pointed out it was the same as Einstein. Why do you say things that are so easily refuted?
No, it was McFarland and Bast who first brought it out on the boards. In the above referenced quote, (fully taken out of context,) I was simply re-iterating information previously exposed by others, and making a comparison.
YOU are the one who is making things up, and trying to attack a poster, due to your own inability to support a very stupid argument.
-
As I stated earlier, that was an error on my part. I thought the shooting occurred at 2:30am, and the encounter with the police occurred earlier in the day. It was an error. Capisce?
Really.
Well, if that is correct, then I guess it places me within the 1%.
Personally, I'd rather be in the 1% that Fed Policies and Wall Street cater to, but hey, at least I'm in the 1% :D
No, it was McFarland and Bast who first brought it out on the boards. In the above referenced quote, (fully taken out of context,) I was simply re-iterating information previously exposed by others, and making a comparison.
YOU are the one who is making things up, and trying to attack a poster, due to your own inability to support a very stupid argument.
So you have an IQ that makes you one of the smartest persons (by IQ standards) on the planet? That is laugh out loud funny. ;D
Yet, here you claimed it is only 140 after I told you your IQ was the same as Einstein.
Quote
Quote from: jaguarenterprises on June 26, 2008, 03:00:42 PM
wtf?!
{blush} oh poop! ...I made a mistake. It's actually 140, not 160.
My mistake. It's only 140. I knew it was a number that just barely squeeked me into the category of "genius", but I'm not claiming to be on the same level as Einstein. It's no big deal, it's just a number that represents potential.
Thanks for posting that link BB.
So is it 140 or 160?
-
So you have an IQ that makes you one of the smartest persons (by IQ standards) on the planet? That is laugh out loud funny. ;D
Yet, here you claimed it is only 140 after I told you your IQ was the same as Einstein.
So is it 140 or 160?
Like I said in the other thread, if you placed an IQ test in front of the decomposed body of Einstein and one in front of 24, I guarantee their scores would be identical.
But let's assume she did score 140. We must rememebr that because of certain anatomical advantages, 24k can easily cheat without being detected. One eye on her test and another on the Asian test taker seated next to her. None the wiser.
-
Like I said in the other thread, if you placed an IQ test in front of the decomposed body of Einstein and one in front of 24, I guarantee their scores would be identical.
But let's assume she did score 140. We must rememebr that because of certain anatomical advantages, 24k can easily cheat without being detected. One eye on her test and another on the Asian test taker seated next to her. None the wiser.
Well it was 140 or 160. She's said both. I'm confused. I need clarification. Very important to know if we are in the presence of greatness. :D
-
Well it was 140 or 160. She's said both. I'm confused. I need clarification. Very important to know if we are in the presence of greatness. :D
She may also be dyslexic and really scored 0.61
-
She may also be dyslexic and really scored 0.61
;D
-
I have no idea if his name was on the lease. That doesn't matter. That's really a dumb non-issue. Nobody is talking about it. I posted the article simply to show the media doesn't care if his name is on the lease. If law enforcement or the prosector makes this an issue, then you'll have obviously have a point. Until then, it's just message board nonsense.
You were the one that brought up property, by saying it would be a whole lot different if it wasn't his property. I pointed out that it wasn't in any sense of the word and you have back peddled ever since.
Also, it would be a much different situation if he wasn't on his own property.
The point of me showing you your prior comments is you were actually ridiculing Tony because he didn't agree with your belief that you have to actually be in danger to use deadly force. You're using the same kind of arguments here (ones that really don't make sense). I understand you changed your position, but I mean think about it: under your old position, which you all but called Tony stupid for not agreeing with, a person could not use deadly if force if someone was pointing an unloaded gun at them threatening to shoot them (and the person being threatened didn't know the gun was unloaded). That really makes no sense. You don't need to know the law to realize that's not a reasonable position.
When did i compare pointing an unloaded gun?
How is an unloaded gun even part of this debate?
Don't think you are making much sense here.
I didn't call Tony stupid, and i don't think he is at all or you, however i thought some of his arguments and reasoning were at the time. In essence i thought he was saying all you have to be is scared. Facts don't matter. But, Facts do matter, because they influence what reasonable person would do.
You're doing the same thing with the whole intruder aspect. Trying to actually make a distinction between someone trying to open a door at 4 a.m., twice, and "picking a lock" is not reasonable, particularly when someone was at the house about a week or so beforehand. All I'm saying is you might want to pull back a bit.
Its extremely reasonable because the acts are VERY different. The sounds, the length of time, the location, the recognition. JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING IS DIFFERENT.
And also logic prevails....... why knock first?
and then.... was there forced entry a week or so ago? No, same thing.
-
sounds like this dude and his GF are just looking for reasons, any reason, why he shot.
We were freaked out from last week.
The police took too long.
Dude jiggled the handle then took off.
Some shape in yard woudln't obey my command.
it's weak shit - and if someone here lost a loved one because some jacked up dude decided to play "Fire into the darkness" instead of giving the police another few minutes to survive when he was perfectly safe inside - I think we'd be super duper pissed.
At this point, it seems like those defending Hendrix are looking for tiny loopholes of how it might have been somewhat okay and possibly just a little legal to open fire. I dont get it. Conservatives are supposed to be all about upholding the law and actually punishing people that shoot guns when they dont have to. Liberals are supposed to be soft on crime, completely whining about how the shooter didn't mean to, he was just scared, oh his feelings, let's all cry and have a drum circle for him, let's make sure the shooter isn't feeling too sad, cause it's all about feelings.
Repubs toss irresponsible shooters in jail. Period. And this dude - justify the shooting any way you want - Fired his gun in a manner which any honest person would call irresponsible.
-
You were the one that brought up property, by saying it would be a whole lot different if it wasn't his property. I pointed out that it wasn't in any sense of the word and you have back peddled ever since.
When did i compare pointing an unloaded gun?
How is an unloaded gun even part of this debate?
Don't think you are making much sense here.
I didn't call Tony stupid, and i don't think he is at all, however i thought some of his arguments and reasoning were at the time.
Its extremely reasonable because the acts are VERY different. The sounds, the length of time, the location, the recognition. JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING IS DIFFERENT.
And also logic prevails....... why knock first?
and then.... was there forced entry a week or so ago? No, same thing.
I haven't backpedaled at all. I still think it was his property based on what I've read and it doesn't matter whether is name is on the lease. I don't think the lease issue matters. It matters to you, but not to me.
I was giving you the loaded gun example to show your earlier analysis was not reasonable, i.e., that someone has to be in actual danger before using deadly force.
I said you "all but called" Tony stupid. Look at your comments.
Why knock and try and twice open the door? Who knows? Maybe the person is on drugs. What is reasonable is to conclude the person has bad intentions.
-
I haven't backpedaled at all. I still think it was his property based on what I've read and it doesn't matter whether is name is on the lease. I don't think the lease issue matters. It matters to you, but not to me.
It doesn't matter to you but in society, in court, in liabiliy, etc it does. Got it. However, it mattered enough for you to use it in you argument:
Also, it would be a much different situation if he wasn't on his own property.
So which is it?
I was giving you the loaded gun example to show your earlier analysis was not reasonable, i.e., that someone has to be in actual danger before using deadly force.
OK, I get what you are saying there, however, based on the known facts through the sequence of events there was no symbolic "gun" pointed at them.
I said you "all but called" Tony stupid. Look at your comments.
We were both in heated debate, both pushing the envelope without digressing into direct ad hom.
Why knock and try and twice open the door? Who knows? Maybe the person is on drugs. What is reasonable is to conclude the person has bad intentions.
Maybe the guy is running from a killer. Maybe the was in an accident and has a gash in his throat. Maybe its a rape victim with 10 feet of duck tap wrapped around her mouth. Maybe its a deaf mute lost.
I would conclude he had bad intentions prolly by default. But i am safe in my house, HE is not trying to force his way in. I have called the cops. They are on their way.......
-
It doesn't matter to you but in society, in court, in liabiliy, etc it does. Got it. However, it mattered enough for you to use it in you argument:
So which is it?
OK, I get what you are saying there, however, based on the known facts through the sequence of events there was no symbolic "gun" pointed at them.
We were both in heated debate, both pushing the envelope without digressing into direct ad hom.
Maybe the guy is running from a killer. Maybe the was in an accident and has a gash in his throat. Maybe its a rape victim with 10 feet of duck tap wrapped around her mouth. Maybe its a deaf mute lost.
I said I still think it's his property. There are many instances where all of the residents or "owners" of a property are not on the lease or deed. Could be a credit issue. But, as I've said several times, I still think it's his property. Not sure how else to convey it. Not an issue for me at all.
I wasn't trying to say the guy had a gun pointed at him. Was purely a hypothetical.
Deaf mute? Not you too? He wasn't a deaf mute. He talked to a cop about 1.5 hours before he was killed.
-
I said I still think it's his property. There are many instances where all of the residents or "owners" of a property are not on the lease or deed. Could be a credit issue. But, as I've said several times, I still think it's his property. Not sure how else to convey it. Not an issue for me at all.
No one else in the world seems to when comes down to reality. and it was an issue for you, no denying it.
I wasn't trying to say the guy had a gun pointed at him. Was purely a hypothetical.
yep
Deaf mute? Not you too? He wasn't a deaf mute. He talked to a cop about 1.5 hours before he was killed.
I listed other possibilities. He wasn't a rape victim either.
-
No one else in the world seems to when comes down to reality. and it was an issue for you, no denying it.
yep
I listed other possibilities. He wasn't a rape victim either.
I'm not denying what I said and I stand by what I said.
He wasn't stabbed, shot, slapped, etc., etc. But you're not suggesting he was mute?
-
I'm not denying what I said and I stand by what I said.
He wasn't stabbed, shot, slapped, etc., etc. But you're not suggesting he was mute?
I understand you are standing by what you said, but what you said is still incorrect. He was a guest.
You said maybe the person was on drugs, I listed a bunch of other maybes. Remember, Hendrix doesn't know the intentions or the sitituation of the person knocking and jiggling the handle of his door at 4am. He can only assume and his assumption of a person with bad intentions is reasonable, but not certian in the absence of forced entry and disengagement of the previous action. And those facts wild tell a reasonable man that he is not in imminent danger of death or injury at that time.
-
I understand you are standing by what you said, but what you said is still incorrect. He was a guest.
You said maybe the person was on drugs, I listed a bunch of other maybes. Remember, Hendrix doesn't know the intentions or the sitituation of the person knocking and jiggling the handle of his door at 4am. He can only assume and his assumption of a person with bad intentions is reasonable, but not certian in the absence of forced entry and disengagement of the previous action. And those facts wild tell a reasonable man that he is not in imminent danger of death or injury at that time.
We just have to agree to disagree on the guest issue.
No, he doesn't know precisely what the person wants. But I've said all I can say about that.
You're not suggesting he was mute though are you?
-
Do you think i am suggesting something?
If so why?
-
Do you think i am suggesting something?
If so why?
Maybe its a deaf mute lost.
-
This is what you think I was doing by that statement?
-
This is what you think I was doing by that statement?
Dude. Don't turn into Jack T. Cross on me. lol. :) Rather than assuming, I was asking. Do you think the guy was mute?
-
Dude. Don't turn into Jack T. Cross on me. lol. :) Rather than assuming, I was asking. Do you think the guy was mute?
Lol. You are being a bit unclear. You are asking me if I think the guy at the door was a mute? I wasn't there. How would I know that? Do you think the guy was on drugs?
Please read again:You said maybe the person was on drugs, I listed a bunch of other maybes. Remember, Hendrix doesn't know the intentions or the sitituation of the person knocking and jiggling the handle of his door at 4am. He can only assume and his assumption of a person with bad intentions is reasonable, but not certian in the absence of forced entry and disengagement of the previous action. And those facts wild tell a reasonable man that he is not in imminent danger of death or injury at that time.
-
Lol. You are being a bit unclear. You are asking me if I think the guy at the door was a mute? I wasn't there. How would I know that? Do you think the guy was on drugs?
Please read again:
Two other people in this thread said the guy was mute. I was just asking if you were saying the same thing. If you're saying you don't know, then that answers my question.
-
I found this:
http://www.georgiapacking.org/GaCode/?title=16&chapter=3§ion=23 (http://www.georgiapacking.org/GaCode/?title=16&chapter=3§ion=23)
O.C.G.A. § 16-3-23
Use of force in defense of habitation
A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he or she reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's unlawful entry into or attack upon a habitation; however, such person is justified in the use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if:
(1) The entry is made or attempted in a violent and tumultuous manner and he or she reasonably believes that the entry is attempted or made for the purpose of assaulting or offering personal violence to any person dwelling or being therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the assault or offer of personal violence;
(2) That force is used against another person who is not a member of the family or household and who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using such force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred; or
(3) The person using such force reasonably believes that the entry is made or attempted for the purpose of committing a felony therein and that such force is necessary to prevent the commission of the felony.
-
Two other people in this thread said the guy was mute. I was just asking if you were saying the same thing. If you're saying you don't know, then that answers my question.
It was reported that the alzhimers had left Westbrook essentially mute.
http://www.google.com/#q=hendrix+kills+72+year+old+mute+man (http://www.google.com/#q=hendrix+kills+72+year+old+mute+man)
-
It was reported that the alzhimers had left Westbrook essentially mute.
http://www.google.com/#q=hendrix+kills+72+year+old+mute+man (http://www.google.com/#q=hendrix+kills+72+year+old+mute+man)
Bad link. Just took me to Google.
I think one or two stories claimed he was mute and probably some others took that and ran with it, but he couldn't have been mute if he talked to a cop at 2:30 a.m. I think if he was mute, the cop would have taken him into custody and tried to find out where he lived.
Here is something I posted earlier:
For reasons that are not clear, Westbrook left his home and started walking. A deputy sheriff noticed him along a road around 2:20 a.m. and stopped to ask what he was doing, Walker County Sheriff Steve Wilson said. Westbrook told the officer that he was gathering mail and then planned to return to his home up a hill. While Westbrook's answers were curt, nothing about the conversation alarmed the deputy.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ALZHEIMERS_FATAL_SHOOTING?SITE=VANOV&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
-
INteresting one about the defense of owned property.
http://www.georgiapacking.org/GaCode/?title=16&chapter=3§ion=24 (http://www.georgiapacking.org/GaCode/?title=16&chapter=3§ion=24)
O.C.G.A. § 16-3-24
Use of force in defense of property other than a habitation
(a) A person is justified in threatening or using force against another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes that such threat or force is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with real property other than a habitation or personal property:
(1) Lawfully in his possession;
(2) Lawfully in the possession of a member of his immediate family; or
(3) Belonging to a person whose property he has a legal duty to protect.
(b) The use of force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to prevent trespass on or other tortious or criminal interference with real property other than a habitation or personal property is not justified unless the person using such force reasonably believes that it is necessary to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
-
Bad link. Just took me to Google.
I think one or two stories claimed he was mute and probably some others took that and with it, but he couldn't have been mute if he talked to a cop at 2:30 a.m. I think if he was mute, the cop would have taken him into custody and tried to find out where he lived.
Here is something I posted earlier:
For reasons that are not clear, Westbrook left his home and started walking. A deputy sheriff noticed him along a road around 2:20 a.m. and stopped to ask what he was doing, Walker County Sheriff Steve Wilson said. Westbrook told the officer that he was gathering mail and then planned to return to his home up a hill. While Westbrook's answers were curt, nothing about the conversation alarmed the deputy.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ALZHEIMERS_FATAL_SHOOTING?SITE=VANOV&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Just type in Hendrix kills 72 year old mute man in the google search and you will see some articles saying it.
-
Just type in Hendrix kills 72 year old mute man in the google search and you will see some articles saying it.
Yeah I've seen them. They're clearly wrong.
-
Yeah I've seen them. They're clearly wrong.
Which makes me wonder why he didn't answer when Hendrix questioned him. I don't know much about alzhimers and the effects.
-
Which makes me wonder why he didn't answer when Hendrix questioned him. I don't know much about alzhimers and the effects.
Probably the cold and confusion. It's a terrible disease. The real victims are family members, because the person suffering from the disease forgets quite a bit, including their friends and family. Very sad for the family members.
Also, wandering is a chronic problem.
-
Yeah it sounds like a stretch to call him mute, but it isn't a stretch to say he may have had a handicap in his ability to answer questions.
-
Yeah it sounds like a stretch to call him mute, but it isn't a stretch to say he may have had a handicap in his ability to answer questions.
Yeah I agree.
-
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=how+do+mute+people+communicate%3F
-
No.
Using the facts as you know them, please describe the ways Hendrix could have been seriously injured or killed at the time he faced Westbrook. If you'd like to use your quote from when you described someone in his situation, that's fine.
-
Using the facts as you know them, please describe the ways Hendrix could have been seriously injured or killed at the time he faced Westbrook. If you'd like to use your quote from when you described someone in his situation, that's fine.
What kind of question is that?? He was an old man with Alzheimer's.
-
Using the facts as you know them, please describe the ways Hendrix could have been seriously injured or killed at the time he faced Westbrook. If you'd like to use your quote from when you described someone in his situation, that's fine.
I thought Hendrix wasn't aware whom was outside? I havent followed this closely.
-
I thought Hendrix wasn't aware whom was outside? I havent followed this closely.
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.
-
I'm talking about a person in the position of Hendrix, facing a potentially hostile subject with unseen hands, etc.
Please pull your heads out of your asses, guys. Especially you, BB, as you should know better.
Will be back to this.
-
::)
-
facing a potentially hostile subject with unseen hands, etc.
I think you just answered your own question.
-
Hey Archer, are you in law enforcement? I seem to remember reading that you were. I'd really appreciate your view point on this. Everything i have read about it, including some stiuff on laws makes this look like a good "borderline" case that could either way with good arguments on both sides.
-
Hey Archer, are you in law enforcement? I seem to remember reading that you were. I'd really appreciate your view point on this. Everything i have read about it, including some stiuff on laws makes this look like a good "borderline" case that could either way with good arguments on both sides.
You might be confusing him with Agnostic?
-
You might be confusing him with Agnostic?
ahh yeah ok. lol
-
Archer's mentioned his brother is a cop.
-
::)
You won't answer, Beach, and we both know why.
-
ahh yeah ok. lol
We all look the same on here. :)
-
...and Agnostic007 is a cop, yes.
-
You won't answer, Beach, and we both know why.
Are you freakin kidding me? I went through great pains to answer a slew of questions from you. And yes, it was painful, because you have a convoluted way of communicating. Makes my head hurt.
But you have exceed your quota of dumb questions. If you have a good, I'll try and answer it. :)
-
Are you freakin kidding me? I went through great pains to answer a slew of questions from you. And yes, it was painful, because you have a convoluted way of communicating. Makes my head hurt.
But you have exceed your quota of dumb questions. If you have a good, I'll try and answer it. :)
It makes your head hurt because you're unused to thinking. You've become fat and lazy, lol. ;D
I'm talking about a person in the position of Hendrix, facing a potentially hostile subject with unseen hands, etc.
-
It makes your head hurt because you're unused to thinking. You've become fat and lazy, lol. ;D
No, makes my head hurt because you don't use plain English. Do you talk like that in real life?
I wish I was fat and lazy. I could use a vacation.
-
No, makes my head hurt because you don't use plain English. Do you talk like that in real life?
I wish I was fat and lazy. I could use a vacation.
It makes your head hurt because you absolutely dread leading yourself toward a conclusion that you don't want to accept.
You should seek only the truth, Beach, period.
-
It makes your head hurt because you absolutely dread leading yourself toward a conclusion that you don't want to accept.
You should seek only the truth, Beach, period.
Oh yeah. You got me. ::)
-
Oh yeah. You got me. ::)
Haha..you're alright, bro.
-
My brother is a police officer. I had a brief conversation with him about this situation when the story first hit the news. He told me that the whole thing is a pretty tricky situation. The sticking point for him was the fact Hendrix exited his home when the most prudent move would have been to retreat. At the time we spoke very little information was known and his opinion must be viewed in that light.
-
What kind of question is that?? He was an old man with Alzheimer's.
He was a silhouette that intended to do some serious bodily harm, that's what he was.
-
He was a silhouette that intended to do some serious bodily harm, that's what he was.
Hahaha..even though Beach said this:
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.
..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 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.
-
Would love to have Hendrix explain his actions.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
:)
(http://mgoblog.com/sites/mgoblog.com/files/beating-a-dead-horse.png)
-
:)
(http://mgoblog.com/sites/mgoblog.com/files/beating-a-dead-horse.png)
?
-
?
Beating a dead horse. Sorta takes the funny out when I gotta explain it . . . .
-
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?
-
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.
-
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. ;D
-
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. ;D
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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
-
i donno lol
Uh oh. Did it come from Jag? :-[
-
Uh oh. Did it come from Jag? :-[
yikes not sure
-
yikes not sure
I'll look later. Have to check out for a while.
-
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.
-
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/
-
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.
-
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.
-
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/
-
Also found this interview of the sheriff. He says no doubt in his mind that both of them were afraid.
-
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.
-
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
-
Then that nullifies this statement:
No it doesn't.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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. :D
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.
-
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.
-
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. :D
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.
-
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.
-
"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) :)
-
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 . . . .
-
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.
-
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.).
-
Well ya...... :)
Side note, I agree all parts should be considered as they relate to the law.
Agree.
-
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 ;) :D ;D
-
Isn't that what I just said? :-\
You are kind of beating a dead horse here ;) :D ;D
lol :D
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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....
-
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?" ::)
-
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 :)
-
"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 :)
;D touché
-
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)
-
"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?
-
Westbrook was approaching Hendrix, as well (according to Hendrix).
All the more reason to get your ass back inside the house and shut your door.
Personally, I would have found the two ROTTWEILERS more of a threat than a shadow,
...but no shots fired at the dogs. Hmmm...
By the way, when you say this:
How would you determine the one, without the other? (calling it a day...will check back later)
I mean "reasonable" as in the spirit of the word, rather than the strict technical definition of it.
ie: 333386's obsession with Obama is completely "reasonable & understandable."
His obsession is reasonable & understandable, but only in the 'strict technical definitions' of those words.
The reason is: he is a nutcase, and we all understand he's completely off his rocker. ;D
However, when one looks at the 'spirit' of the phrase "reasonable & understandable", one could hardly say his actions are those of a rational, mature, and responsible adult given similar circumstances.
Sorry 333386, lol, no disrespect intended, ...just trying to provide an example all readers here can easily understand (in the strict technical definition of "understand") and your behaviour happens to be the most perfect example that immediately came to mind
-
All the more reason to get your ass back inside the house and shut your door.
Personally, I would have found the two ROTTWEILERS more of a threat than a shadow,
...but no shots fired at the dogs. Hmmm...
He shot four times, as you say (and hit Westbrook only once), so he may have tried to target the dogs, too. I wonder if anyone's asked him.
I mean "reasonable" as in the spirit of the word, rather than the strict technical definition of it.
ie: 333386's obsession with Obama is completely "reasonable & understandable."
His obsession is reasonable & understandable, but only in the 'strict technical definitions' of those words.
The reason is: he is a nutcase, and we all understand he's completely off his rocker. ;D
However, when one looks at the 'spirit' of the phrase "reasonable & understandable", one could hardly say his actions are those of a rational, mature, and responsible adult given similar circumstances.
Sorry 333386, lol, no disrespect intended, ...just trying to provide an example all readers here can easily understand (in the strict technical definition of "understand") and your behaviour happens to be the most perfect example that immediately came to mind
Seems the idea is whether it was reasonable for him to fear someone walking toward him in the dark, after trying to enter his home, while (apparently) ignoring his commands to at least halt and show hands.
From his perspective, anything else (such as retreating) may have gotten him shot, as he was unable to determine what this person may be holding, etc. And beyond the obvious problems that come with being shot, it would place his fiancee in danger of being unprotected.
The fact that Hendrix should have associated leaving his house with a very sharp increase in risk for all potential dangers, is what complicates things (seriously: i'd like to know wtf he was thinking. if you look at who this guy is, it can't be dismissed as extreme stupidity...so, gee, wonder what it could be).
-
"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 :)
Is this related to something Hendrix said about trespassing, 240?
-
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.
You are correct. The man was looking for some else. Doesn't change the fact that an angry man was at their home, which is the reason he started keeping the gun there in the first place. Also doesn't change the fact that the prior visit by an angry man influenced their mindset on the night of the shooting.
-
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.
No it isn't.
Nobody fell and broke a limb on the property. No lawsuit has been filed. This is a criminal matter. Your examples have absolutely nothing to do with what actually happened.
-
All the more reason to get your ass back inside the house and shut your door.
Personally, I would have found the two ROTTWEILERS more of a threat than a shadow,
...but no shots fired at the dogs. Hmmm...
I mean "reasonable" as in the spirit of the word, rather than the strict technical definition of it.
ie: 333386's obsession with Obama is completely "reasonable & understandable."
His obsession is reasonable & understandable, but only in the 'strict technical definitions' of those words.
The reason is: he is a nutcase, and we all understand he's completely off his rocker. ;D
However, when one looks at the 'spirit' of the phrase "reasonable & understandable", one could hardly say his actions are those of a rational, mature, and responsible adult given similar circumstances.
Sorry 333386, lol, no disrespect intended, ...just trying to provide an example all readers here can easily understand (in the strict technical definition of "understand") and your behaviour happens to be the most perfect example that immediately came to mind
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. You're calling someone a nutcase?? Seriously? ???
-
i think the sheriff used the word 'trespass' in a press conference.
the minute this shoot is about firing on tresspassers in a residential area lol, hendrix is in trouble.
-
He shot four times, as you say (and hit Westbrook only once), so he may have tried to target the dogs, too. I wonder if anyone's asked him.
It's not at all surprising that only one shot hit, ...despite his military background.
Because he was recklessly shooting at a bloody shadow!!!
Seems the idea is whether it was reasonable for him to fear someone walking toward him in the dark, after trying to enter his home, while (apparently) ignoring his commands to at least halt and show hands.
No. It is not whether it was reasonable for him to fear Westbrook.
Was it reasonable for him to SHOOT Westbrook?
it wasn't Hendrix's fear that killed Westbrook,
...it was 1 of the 4 bullets Hendrix discharged from his weapon that did.
From his perspective, anything else (such as retreating) may have gotten him shot, as he was unable to determine what this person may be holding, etc. And beyond the obvious problems that come with being shot, it would place his fiancee in danger of being unprotected.
The fact that Hendrix should have associated leaving his house with a very sharp increase in risk for all potential dangers, is what complicates things (seriously: i'd like to know wtf he was thinking. if you look at who this guy is, it can't be dismissed as extreme stupidity...so, gee, wonder what it could be).
It was a witches brew. 1/2 oz. of Napoleon Syndrome over ice, with a splash of paranoia, stirred with a Glock penis extender and voilà, one very lethal cocktail. Not so neat, and definitely didn't go down easy.
-
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot. You're calling someone a nutcase?? Seriously? ???
Someone obviously hasn't read some of 333's more memorable posts. ;D
...either that, or has selectively chosen to omit them from memory. ;)
-
It's not at all surprising that only one shot hit, ...despite his military background.
Because he was recklessly shooting at a bloody shadow!!!
I'd like to know more about how he described that point in time...if he was even asked.
No. It is not whether it was reasonable for him to fear Westbrook.
Was it reasonable for him to SHOOT Westbrook?
it wasn't Hendrix's fear that killed Westbrook,
...it was 1 of the 4 bullets Hendrix discharged from his weapon that did.
To the degree that he could be expected to fear Westbrook, how would you separate the two?
It was a witches brew. 1/2 oz. of Napoleon Syndrome over ice, with a splash of paranoia, stirred with a Glock penis extender and voilà, one very lethal cocktail. Not so neat, and definitely didn't go down easy.
I think it's a tall stein of PTSD or something similar. Best thing that could happen to this guy, is to get it resolved.
-
Someone obviously hasn't read some of 333's more memorable posts. ;D
...either that, or has selectively chosen to omit them from memory. ;)
I've read his. And I've read yours. My conclusion: you are nuts.
-
I'd like to know more about how he described that point in time...if he was even asked.
To the degree that he could be expected to fear Westbrook, how would you separate the two?
Easily! I fear getting into the dentist's chair. I still do it, ...and I haven't shot him. ...yet. ;D
Seriously tho I've been in a far more fearful situation, where someone attempted to abduct me at the age of 18
The high speed car chase that followed left no doubt he was trying to take me, and there were also a few previous occurrences that added to the escalated fearfulness of the situation (which I will NOT publicly elaborate on) however, there were still options available that did not include taking the man's life.
In the end, it was a case of mistaken identity, which would not have gotten sorted out had we shot him.
A reasonable response to oncoming danger is to extricate yourself from harms way, ...not "Bush Bravado"
Ya... Hendrix was "SUCH A MAN" ...such a tough guy... "Bring it on!" blah blah blah ::)
It's real easy for a wimp to be tough when he knows he's got a gun, ...but it takes a wise, intelligent and REAL man to extricate himself and his girlfriend from a dangerous situation without having to resort to using his gun.
The use of lethal force should be a LAST RESORT, ...not the GO TO response.
I think it's a tall stein of PTSD or something similar. Best thing that could happen to this guy, is to get it resolved.
You don't have to be short to have Megalomaniacal Napoleon syndrome. You see it in cops everyday
It can sometimes be understandable (in both senses of the word) but off-duty, it is straight up out-of-line!
The problem is far too many cops, and military types either refuse to, or are incapable of distinguishing between these two modes, or when in the line of duty, if it is even appropriate.
I saw first hand with my ex who was a cop. When he was on duty, he did his job with courtesy & professionalism. He's always maintained a clear head, and made many snap decisions that saved lives. Decisions, that had he chosen the alternative could have had very tragic outcomes. He left no doubt that he was the one in charge, but he did so with kindness, courtesy, and professionalism. Off-duty, he knew how to turn it off. He could turn it on in a micro-second if the situation called for it, ...but he knew the difference between being an on-duty public servant, and being an off-duty civilian, ...as well as his requirements and responsibilities in each role.
The damned Praetorians are getting out of line!
-
I've read his. And I've read yours. My conclusion: you are nuts.
You're entitled to your own opinions, no matter how inaccurate and misguided they made be. :)
-
You're entitled to your own opinions, no matter how inaccurate and misguided they made be. :)
This is true. But I also remember the comments you made about Hugo's deceased mother. Nothing I've read on this board rivals that craziness.
-
This is true. But I also remember the comments you made about Hugo's deceased mother. Nothing I've read on this board rivals that craziness.
except for her endless spamming of gas pills and a tired cash for gold scheme
-
You're entitled to your own opinions, no matter how inaccurate and misguided they made be. :)
yes yes samson, everyone else doesnt get it...its only you who are enlightened
you dumb ass ::)
-
yes yes samson, everyone else doesnt get it...its only you who are enlightened
you dumb ass ::)
no surprise the last three boyfriends she had committed suicide
-
yes yes samson, everyone else doesnt get it...its only you who are enlightened
you dumb ass ::)
-
oh, brother...that vest alone costs him any credibility...almost as bad as that pajama boy
stupid pyramid scammer
-
oh, brother...that vest alone costs him any credibility...almost as bad as that pajama boy
Well if you hated his vest, ...I just know you're gonna love this other song of his.
It just gives me the warm & fuzzies! :D
-
any new developments in this case?
Because the debate is just getting stupid now.
-
any new developments in this case?
Because the debate is just getting stupid now.
You're trespassing on this thread. You have 2 seconds to apologize and lay on the ground before someone will tragically and mistakenly fire 4 rounds in your direction.
Ugh, I hate how long FL takes to decide these things.
-
You're trespassing on this thread. You have 2 seconds to apologize and lay on the ground before someone will tragically and mistakenly fire 4 rounds in your direction.
Ugh, I hate how long FL takes to decide these things.
FL?
-
FL?
Don't try and confuse him with the facts. :)
-
FL?
ah that's right, I forgot it was a georgia shoot. probably takes even longer there.
-
ah that's right, I forgot it was a georgia shoot. probably takes even longer there.
How long did it take in FL for the Zimmerman case?
-
How long did it take in FL for the Zimmerman case?
3 or 4 weeks I think? It had national attention. But it wasn't during the holidays
My brother's case took 22 months to fully resolve... and they had the shooting on video. They didn't catch one of the guys for a month and it took a year to get him sorted out and plead out.
-
Easily! I fear getting into the dentist's chair. I still do it, ...and I haven't shot him. ...yet. ;D
Seriously tho I've been in a far more fearful situation, where someone attempted to abduct me at the age of 18
The high speed car chase that followed left no doubt he was trying to take me, and there were also a few previous occurrences that added to the escalated fearfulness of the situation (which I will NOT publicly elaborate on) however, there were still options available that did not include taking the man's life.
In the end, it was a case of mistaken identity, which would not have gotten sorted out had we shot him.
A reasonable response to oncoming danger is to extricate yourself from harms way, ...not "Bush Bravado"
Ya... Hendrix was "SUCH A MAN" ...such a tough guy... "Bring it on!" blah blah blah ::)
It's real easy for a wimp to be tough when he knows he's got a gun, ...but it takes a wise, intelligent and REAL man to extricate himself and his girlfriend from a dangerous situation without having to resort to using his gun.
The use of lethal force should be a LAST RESORT, ...not the GO TO response.
You don't have to be short to have Megalomaniacal Napoleon syndrome. You see it in cops everyday
It can sometimes be understandable (in both senses of the word) but off-duty, it is straight up out-of-line!
The problem is far too many cops, and military types either refuse to, or are incapable of distinguishing between these two modes, or when in the line of duty, if it is even appropriate.
I saw first hand with my ex who was a cop. When he was on duty, he did his job with courtesy & professionalism. He's always maintained a clear head, and made many snap decisions that saved lives. Decisions, that had he chosen the alternative could have had very tragic outcomes. He left no doubt that he was the one in charge, but he did so with kindness, courtesy, and professionalism. Off-duty, he knew how to turn it off. He could turn it on in a micro-second if the situation called for it, ...but he knew the difference between being an on-duty public servant, and being an off-duty civilian, ...as well as his requirements and responsibilities in each role.
The damned Praetorians are getting out of line!
Damn, 24KT. I'm glad you got out of that unharmed. Whose identity was mistaken?
-
How long did it take in FL for the Zimmerman case?
I suspect they have either already decided not to charge him, or they are presenting it to a grand jury (or have already done so). Not really a complicated case in terms of what happened. Only a handful of witnesses, who all appear to support Hendrix: sheriff, fiancé, 911 operator. Autopsy is done.
Also, the media isn't tracking this, so we're less likely to see a press conference announcing a decision one way or the other.
-
I suspect they have either already decided not to charge him, or they are presenting it to a grand jury (or have already done so). Not really a complicated case in terms of what happened. Only a handful of witnesses, who all appear to support Hendrix: sheriff, fiancé, 911 operator. Autopsy is done.
Also, the media isn't tracking this, so we're less likely to see a press conference announcing a decision one way or the other.
sheriff saw the shooting?
911 operator saw it?
fiance was outside?
i don't think they are witnesses
-
sheriff saw the shooting?
911 operator saw it?
fiance was outside?
i don't think they are witnesses
Sheriff observed his demeanor right after the shooting. I posted a clip of him saying no doubt in his mind both of them were afraid, so yes he is a witness.
911 operator heard the fiancé's voice, so yes he or she is a witness.
Fiancé knew what was happening. In fact, she's the only person who was there during the shooting, so of course she would be called as a witness too.
The more I think about this, the more, I doubt they'll charge him. Would be very difficult to get a conviction IMO. All three of those witness will say Hendrix and his fiancé were afraid. Hendrix will say the same thing.
But I also thought Casey Anthony would get convicted of something . . . .
-
(a little background on hendrix...written before westbrook incident)
*
“Our nation had just been attacked. I was searching for a purpose in life and I wanted to do something about it,” Joe Hendrix explains of his life-changing path. After having a chaotic upbringing, he could have let it hold him back or cause him to settle for mediocrity.
But it was his hard work, determination and a supportive older sister that helped pave the way to overcome insurmountable obstacles.
When Joe was younger, his father suffered with alcoholism, which resulted in undiagnosed depressions for his mother. “My dad had a history of being abusive emotionally and when he drank – it just made it worse,” Joe admits.
Instead of having youthful dreams of being a police officer or fireman, Joe’s only aspiration was to have a better life. “There had to be something better than what my parents were living. I wanted to be influential and I wanted to matter,” he says.
Joe’s parents divorced when he was 15 and quitting high school was inevitable. The dysfunctional family had struggled but if it had been an easier life Joe may not have the fortitude he has now to make things happen. He felt he needed to get a job and “just get out”.
“My sister being 11 years older than me was a very big influence in my life. Stacy was about five steps ahead of me and she was able to encourage, guide me and give me direction. She helped me build confidence in order to go to college. We both had the same childhood but she had self-determination,” Joe declares.
He moved in with his sister and worked in a retail sporting goods store. Stacy encouraged her little brother to take classes and study for his GED. “I was petrified to take the test. I was afraid I’d fail it and it would destroy my confidence and, I really did have dreams of going to college,” Joe insists. “Stacy told me to just go down there and take the test and see what happens. So I did and I passed it. I did fairly well at it – and that helped build my confidence,” Joe says.
He enrolled in Chattanooga State, but with his lack of education Joe was advised to take several developmental courses which did not go towards his degree. “I was looking at about two years of doing this before I would be on any kind of college level toward a degree. My ACT scores were very low. They measure your academic level to put you on a path so you can be stable academically for college courses,” Joe maintains.
“Shortly after, I had about 20 hours of courses that did count toward my degree – and then Sept. 11th happened. That was an opportunity for me to enlist and I saw that it was something that was bigger than myself,” Joe reveals.
"I was positioned well because I was single, young and didn’t have any debt. I knew if I could join the military, not only could I help protect our nation but I could also get money for college,” Joe contends.
It was a struggle for Joe, having started off a little behind and trying to work full time and attend college. Joining the Army in 2002 put Joe on a path that would change his life.
“I knew I would end up going to Iraq or Afghanistan. I left for basic training and one year later I was given a permanent duty station in Washington state out in Tacoma and I left for Iraq in November 2003.
After a couple of weeks in Iraq, Joe became very ill and was hospitalized three months later. Packed full of medication and steroids, Joe was not getting any better and was sent to Germany for more tests.
“I didn’t want to leave Iraq. I knew that if I said something about being ill, that was what would happen. The thought of going through all this training and leaving my brothers and sisters behind was just not something I wanted to do. I fought going to the hospital, but trying to hide my illness was going to cause more harm than good. I ended up having to get a medical discharge from the military,” Joe states.
Having his large intestines removed and multiple surgeries, it took about a year for Joe to completely recover.
In 2005 he moved back home to Ooltewah and applied with the Veteran’s Administration program. Instead of using the GI bill to finish college, Joe chose a rehabilitation program through the VA.
“This particular illness could have kept me from getting adequate employment. The VA is good to be supportive and put you in training – it meant a college degree for me. I went through the VA’s vocational educational program and they paid for me to go to Lee University,” Joe says.
“It was the first time in several years where I did not have an enormous amount of stress. After all the things I had been through, this was a time to breathe and focus on where it was that I wanted to go and how I was going to get there. I was able to go to school full time and just kind of decompress and take a step back from all that I had just been through,” Joe attests.
“In 2007 I got an internship on Capitol Hill in Washington with Congressman Joe Pitts’ office. I was able to use my military experience, be of some influence and work with the press secretary. That was probably one of the most life-changing experiences I have ever had,” Joe professes.
“This was an instant fit for me. I was introduced to a former staff for Joe Pitts named Ken Miller. Ken worked for the Congressman for nine years and was executive director of the electronic warfare and information operations association.
“He invited me to come over and help build public relations. While it wasn’t a lot of money it was a position. It was a contract job. It was a way for me to be connected to D.C. and to gain experience. I helped them set up a website and social media and helped develope some publications. Here I was still in college and I was building a real world experience,” Joe expresses.
“It was instrumental in putting me in areas I had never been before. I was going to meetings with three-star generals, and influencing legislation on Capitol Hill. This was literally life changing. It was a way of solidifying the fact that for the first time I was on a path that was so different than what my parents had been on."
His sister Stacy says, “I'm so proud of his accomplishments. He loves God, his family and his country. Joe just has a heart of gold.”
Just before Joe had gone to D.C. for the internship he went to Europe on a cross-cultural trip required by Lee University. “There was a period between the end of that trip and the beginning of me going to Washington to work on Capitol Hill, where I was not in school. You don’t get the VA money during the summer if you aren’t taking classes. I had to get a job, I had to get it fast and it had to be temporary,” Joe insists.
“The only thing I could find that would hire me temporarily was a little company in Chattanooga contracted with EPB,” Joe says and then smiles, “I am standing there with a hard hat on, making seven or eight bucks an hour by holding a sign that said stop and go - flipping it back and forth. Then less than a week later, I am in a suit on Capitol Hill influencing a congressional office,” Joe laughs.
“I came out of that first meeting amused. One of the staff for Congressman Pitts asked me what I was laughing about. I said, ‘Do you know what I was doing this time last week?’ I told him that I was flipping a stop and go sign back and forth and now I am on Capitol Hill.’ I said to him, “I am having a moment… so let me just have my moment’,” Joe chuckles.
“When I worked with AOC, there was a flight simulator that I had an opportunity to fly. I am quite proud of myself because I landed on the aircraft carrier. It’s an exact replica of flying the Boeing EA-18 Growler at Andrew’s Air Force base in Maryland,” Joe states.
When Joe got the job with AOC, graduating became difficult. “I was traveling back and forth to Washington, driving and flying, attending conferences throughout the nation to do the publications and the tasks they asked me to do. I would have graduated from Lee in two years, but it took me an extra year because I was working. I finally graduated and got a full time position in Washington, with a PR firm right on K Street," he said.
While working for the PR firm, Joe had the opportunity to go to the White House. “Our firm led, implemented and executed the Martin Luther King memorial dedication on the National Mall last October, project-managing it from beginning to end,” Joe says. “We had to work with the White House advance team, getting microphones and cameras set up, implementing security strategies …all those things," he said.
“Once again, it was one of those times where you step back and you just can’t believe that you’re doing this. You just realize all the hard work you put in and all the risks that you have taken. I was at the White House, standing in the back yard and I thought, ‘I’m invited to be here and the Secret Service isn’t going to tackle me!’ You look out at the gate and see people looking in knowing that – that’s going to be you again, but for right now - you are on the White House lawn!’ Joe exclaims, “It was one of the greatest moments.”
Joe was growing a bit leery of how expensive D.C. was and felt like it may be time for him to do something different.
“I saw online that Scottie Mayfield was considering running for Congress. Scottie is incredibly well known, he had a bio that is impressive and I thought this could be something good. I emailed Tommy Harper my resume telling him that I was in D.C. and I asked if he was looking for a communications director for the campaign,” Joe says. “I didn’t even know if I would get a response at all. Through a series of emails, Tommy wound up in D.C. after about two weeks. We had a good meeting and I felt good about being a part of it.”
Scottie lost to Chuck Fleischmann. After losing the race, Joe was asked by his peers if he would continue in politics. “I most likely will not get involved with politics similar to what I did with running a campaign. It was incredible but I saw things that were troubling to me in terms with how the game is played - and it is a game,” Joe admits. “It was tough to watch this wonderful guy that I had made an investment with continue to take a beating in the media for certain things fabricated and simply not true. It was tough to watch. Scottie handled it a lot better than I did.”
Joe then had an opportunity to be a political strategist with a firm but decided not to go that direction.
“After the campaign ended, I applied for a job with Area203 as a senior public relations specialist. I could tell immediately that I was supposed to be there and I think they felt the same way; it was just an instant fit,” Joe insists. He will begin this new endeavor toward the end of this month.
Proud of her brother’s achievements Stacy says, “Life is an ongoing adventure for him and he sees no boundaries toward reaching his goals.”
Looking back, Joe says, “When I was in basic training and that drill sergeant was in my face I knew that it was going to lay a foundation for the rest of my life. And that is exactly what has happened. The last 10 years have been so incredibly intense – one wrong move and it could change your life forever. I was blessed enough to have a sister who supported me, guided me and put me on a path for success.”
*
from here:
http://www.chattanoogan.com/2012/8/22/232546/z/Sports/Schedules-and-Scores.aspx
-
Sheriff observed his demeanor right after the shooting. I posted a clip of him saying no doubt in his mind both of them were afraid, so yes he is a witness.
911 operator heard the fiancé's voice, so yes he or she is a witness.
Fiancé knew what was happening. In fact, she's the only person who was there during the shooting, so of course she would be called as a witness too.
The more I think about this, the more, I doubt they'll charge him. Would be very difficult to get a conviction IMO. All three of those witness will say Hendrix and his fiancé were afraid. Hendrix will say the same thing.
But I also thought Casey Anthony would get convicted of something . . . .
Not where it really matters, at the shooting.
I agree, i think the delay says they are not charging him.
-
(a little background on hendrix...written before westbrook incident)
*
“Our nation had just been attacked. I was searching for a purpose in life and I wanted to do something about it,” Joe Hendrix explains of his life-changing path. After having a chaotic upbringing, he could have let it hold him back or cause him to settle for mediocrity.
But it was his hard work, determination and a supportive older sister that helped pave the way to overcome insurmountable obstacles.
When Joe was younger, his father suffered with alcoholism, which resulted in undiagnosed depressions for his mother. “My dad had a history of being abusive emotionally and when he drank – it just made it worse,” Joe admits.
Instead of having youthful dreams of being a police officer or fireman, Joe’s only aspiration was to have a better life. “There had to be something better than what my parents were living. I wanted to be influential and I wanted to matter,” he says.
Joe’s parents divorced when he was 15 and quitting high school was inevitable. The dysfunctional family had struggled but if it had been an easier life Joe may not have the fortitude he has now to make things happen. He felt he needed to get a job and “just get out”.
“My sister being 11 years older than me was a very big influence in my life. Stacy was about five steps ahead of me and she was able to encourage, guide me and give me direction. She helped me build confidence in order to go to college. We both had the same childhood but she had self-determination,” Joe declares.
He moved in with his sister and worked in a retail sporting goods store. Stacy encouraged her little brother to take classes and study for his GED. “I was petrified to take the test. I was afraid I’d fail it and it would destroy my confidence and, I really did have dreams of going to college,” Joe insists. “Stacy told me to just go down there and take the test and see what happens. So I did and I passed it. I did fairly well at it – and that helped build my confidence,” Joe says.
He enrolled in Chattanooga State, but with his lack of education Joe was advised to take several developmental courses which did not go towards his degree. “I was looking at about two years of doing this before I would be on any kind of college level toward a degree. My ACT scores were very low. They measure your academic level to put you on a path so you can be stable academically for college courses,” Joe maintains.
“Shortly after, I had about 20 hours of courses that did count toward my degree – and then Sept. 11th happened. That was an opportunity for me to enlist and I saw that it was something that was bigger than myself,” Joe reveals.
"I was positioned well because I was single, young and didn’t have any debt. I knew if I could join the military, not only could I help protect our nation but I could also get money for college,” Joe contends.
It was a struggle for Joe, having started off a little behind and trying to work full time and attend college. Joining the Army in 2002 put Joe on a path that would change his life.
“I knew I would end up going to Iraq or Afghanistan. I left for basic training and one year later I was given a permanent duty station in Washington state out in Tacoma and I left for Iraq in November 2003.
After a couple of weeks in Iraq, Joe became very ill and was hospitalized three months later. Packed full of medication and steroids, Joe was not getting any better and was sent to Germany for more tests.
“I didn’t want to leave Iraq. I knew that if I said something about being ill, that was what would happen. The thought of going through all this training and leaving my brothers and sisters behind was just not something I wanted to do. I fought going to the hospital, but trying to hide my illness was going to cause more harm than good. I ended up having to get a medical discharge from the military,” Joe states.
Having his large intestines removed and multiple surgeries, it took about a year for Joe to completely recover.
In 2005 he moved back home to Ooltewah and applied with the Veteran’s Administration program. Instead of using the GI bill to finish college, Joe chose a rehabilitation program through the VA.
“This particular illness could have kept me from getting adequate employment. The VA is good to be supportive and put you in training – it meant a college degree for me. I went through the VA’s vocational educational program and they paid for me to go to Lee University,” Joe says.
“It was the first time in several years where I did not have an enormous amount of stress. After all the things I had been through, this was a time to breathe and focus on where it was that I wanted to go and how I was going to get there. I was able to go to school full time and just kind of decompress and take a step back from all that I had just been through,” Joe attests.
“In 2007 I got an internship on Capitol Hill in Washington with Congressman Joe Pitts’ office. I was able to use my military experience, be of some influence and work with the press secretary. That was probably one of the most life-changing experiences I have ever had,” Joe professes.
“This was an instant fit for me. I was introduced to a former staff for Joe Pitts named Ken Miller. Ken worked for the Congressman for nine years and was executive director of the electronic warfare and information operations association.
“He invited me to come over and help build public relations. While it wasn’t a lot of money it was a position. It was a contract job. It was a way for me to be connected to D.C. and to gain experience. I helped them set up a website and social media and helped develope some publications. Here I was still in college and I was building a real world experience,” Joe expresses.
“It was instrumental in putting me in areas I had never been before. I was going to meetings with three-star generals, and influencing legislation on Capitol Hill. This was literally life changing. It was a way of solidifying the fact that for the first time I was on a path that was so different than what my parents had been on."
His sister Stacy says, “I'm so proud of his accomplishments. He loves God, his family and his country. Joe just has a heart of gold.”
Just before Joe had gone to D.C. for the internship he went to Europe on a cross-cultural trip required by Lee University. “There was a period between the end of that trip and the beginning of me going to Washington to work on Capitol Hill, where I was not in school. You don’t get the VA money during the summer if you aren’t taking classes. I had to get a job, I had to get it fast and it had to be temporary,” Joe insists.
“The only thing I could find that would hire me temporarily was a little company in Chattanooga contracted with EPB,” Joe says and then smiles, “I am standing there with a hard hat on, making seven or eight bucks an hour by holding a sign that said stop and go - flipping it back and forth. Then less than a week later, I am in a suit on Capitol Hill influencing a congressional office,” Joe laughs.
“I came out of that first meeting amused. One of the staff for Congressman Pitts asked me what I was laughing about. I said, ‘Do you know what I was doing this time last week?’ I told him that I was flipping a stop and go sign back and forth and now I am on Capitol Hill.’ I said to him, “I am having a moment… so let me just have my moment’,” Joe chuckles.
“When I worked with AOC, there was a flight simulator that I had an opportunity to fly. I am quite proud of myself because I landed on the aircraft carrier. It’s an exact replica of flying the Boeing EA-18 Growler at Andrew’s Air Force base in Maryland,” Joe states.
When Joe got the job with AOC, graduating became difficult. “I was traveling back and forth to Washington, driving and flying, attending conferences throughout the nation to do the publications and the tasks they asked me to do. I would have graduated from Lee in two years, but it took me an extra year because I was working. I finally graduated and got a full time position in Washington, with a PR firm right on K Street," he said.
While working for the PR firm, Joe had the opportunity to go to the White House. “Our firm led, implemented and executed the Martin Luther King memorial dedication on the National Mall last October, project-managing it from beginning to end,” Joe says. “We had to work with the White House advance team, getting microphones and cameras set up, implementing security strategies …all those things," he said.
“Once again, it was one of those times where you step back and you just can’t believe that you’re doing this. You just realize all the hard work you put in and all the risks that you have taken. I was at the White House, standing in the back yard and I thought, ‘I’m invited to be here and the Secret Service isn’t going to tackle me!’ You look out at the gate and see people looking in knowing that – that’s going to be you again, but for right now - you are on the White House lawn!’ Joe exclaims, “It was one of the greatest moments.”
Joe was growing a bit leery of how expensive D.C. was and felt like it may be time for him to do something different.
“I saw online that Scottie Mayfield was considering running for Congress. Scottie is incredibly well known, he had a bio that is impressive and I thought this could be something good. I emailed Tommy Harper my resume telling him that I was in D.C. and I asked if he was looking for a communications director for the campaign,” Joe says. “I didn’t even know if I would get a response at all. Through a series of emails, Tommy wound up in D.C. after about two weeks. We had a good meeting and I felt good about being a part of it.”
Scottie lost to Chuck Fleischmann. After losing the race, Joe was asked by his peers if he would continue in politics. “I most likely will not get involved with politics similar to what I did with running a campaign. It was incredible but I saw things that were troubling to me in terms with how the game is played - and it is a game,” Joe admits. “It was tough to watch this wonderful guy that I had made an investment with continue to take a beating in the media for certain things fabricated and simply not true. It was tough to watch. Scottie handled it a lot better than I did.”
Joe then had an opportunity to be a political strategist with a firm but decided not to go that direction.
“After the campaign ended, I applied for a job with Area203 as a senior public relations specialist. I could tell immediately that I was supposed to be there and I think they felt the same way; it was just an instant fit,” Joe insists. He will begin this new endeavor toward the end of this month.
Proud of her brother’s achievements Stacy says, “Life is an ongoing adventure for him and he sees no boundaries toward reaching his goals.”
Looking back, Joe says, “When I was in basic training and that drill sergeant was in my face I knew that it was going to lay a foundation for the rest of my life. And that is exactly what has happened. The last 10 years have been so incredibly intense – one wrong move and it could change your life forever. I was blessed enough to have a sister who supported me, guided me and put me on a path for success.”
*
from here:
http://www.chattanoogan.com/2012/8/22/232546/z/Sports/Schedules-and-Scores.aspx
Good find. So he must have a colostomy bag? Makes it much less likely he would be able to handle a physical confrontation.
-
Not where it really matters, at the shooting.
I agree, i think the delay says they are not charging him.
Before, during, and after matters. For example, if the 911 operator said the fiancé sounded calm and the sheriff said Hendrix looked completely composed, then that would support an argument that they were not afraid during the incident.
-
Before, during, and after matters. For example, if the 911 operator said the fiancé sounded calm and the sheriff said Hendrix looked completely composed, then that would support an argument that they were not afraid during the incident.
You are not taking into account that there are different levels of fear/being afraid again
-
Good find. So he must have a colostomy bag? Makes it much less likely he would be able to handle a physical confrontation.
Yeah, it is interesting stuff. The whole thing is really something.
For a person with such a start in life, though (if the essence of the article is to be believed), he sure made some nifty connections along the way.
-
You are not taking into account that there are different levels of fear/being afraid again
Sure I am. Just talking about how the sheriff, 911 operator, and fiancé are all witnesses. I understand not everyone reacts the same. But here, the demeanor and voice of Hendrix and his fiancé apparently exhibited traditional signs of fear. There are only a handful of people who could testify about it, and they would all say the same thing.
-
Yeah, it is interesting stuff. The whole thing is really something.
For a person with such a start in life, though (if the essence of the article is to be believed), he sure made some nifty connections along the way.
I love it when people overcome those kinds of obstacles. He'll probably need therapy to get through this.
-
Sure I am. Just talking about how the sheriff, 911 operator, and fiancé are all witnesses. I understand not everyone reacts the same. But here, the demeanor and voice of Hendrix and his fiancé apparently exhibited traditional signs of fear. There are only a handful of people who could testify about it, and they would all say the same thing.
fear is not black or white, on or off. Further more, as how scared a person is varies so do does someone else's interpretation of how scared a person is.
-
fear is not black or white, on or off. Further more, as how scared a person is varies so do does someone else's interpretation of how scared a person is.
True, and if someone is able to see and/or hear a person either during or shortly after an event, they can describe whether or not that person appeared to be afraid.
-
I love it when people overcome those kinds of obstacles. He'll probably need therapy to get through this.
He speaks about "an enormous amount of stress", in terms of "several years". Again, this is (of course) from before the Westbrook incident.
-
True, and if someone is able to see and/or hear a person either during or shortly after an event, they can describe whether or not that person appeared to be afraid.
Even shitty lawyers would shred that.
-
Even shitty lawyers would shred that.
Shred what? Fiancé says she is afraid. 911 operator says she sounded afraid. Sheriff says they both looked afraid. So, what, call them all liars?
-
Damn, 24KT. I'm glad you got out of that unharmed. Whose identity was mistaken?
I was about 17 or 18 at the time, and my boyfriend F and I had been out for dinner, and he was taking me home. Before he dropped me off we parked at the end of a dead end street in my neighbourhood and talked for a bit.
Next thing you know, this older man early to mid 40s or so pulled up parallel alongside us, literally less than 2 inches away from my boyfriends driver side door. We were surprised the cars didn't touch, it was that close. My boyfriend was unable to open his car door because there wasn't even 2 inches between the cars.
Understand, this was a huge very wide deadend street. It was a future main thoroughfare that had yet to be extended There was no reason for him to be parking that close to us. He was clearly trying to box us in
The guy was behaving all weirded out, refused to even look at us, just kept his eyes straight ahead, and looking like he was on the brink of exploding. He pushed the button to lower his passenger side window, and with his eyes straight ahead, ordered me into his car.
My boyfriend looked over at him and said "She ain't going nowhere with you." So the guy repeated himself, slower, more deliberately, and in no uncertain terms, made it clear he expected me to get into his car. The whole time, his eyes are glued straight ahead. He refused to even look at us as he spoke.
Then the guy kept saying "That's my girl, She don't belong with you. she belongs with me, and she's got 3 seconds to get out of that car, or I'm coming to get her."
My boyfriend F decided it was time for us to leave. As the mysterious stranger opened his door to come get me, F started the engine, slammed it into reverse, and in a spit second slid the car out from the narrow slot he had wedged us into. Our mysterious stranger jumped back into his car and started it up, and came after us. As F proceeded to back up, the stranger also reversed, and attempted to block us from leaving.
One thing he hadn't counted on was F's mad skillz behind the wheel. F could have been a trick stunt driver if he wanted to be. The only people I've ever seen capable of handling a wheel with as much skill & precision as him to this very day, are professional race car drivers and film stunt car drivers. F could drive better in reverse gear than most guys can in forward.
The guy tried to box us in with his car, so F couldn't turn the vehicle around. So he just said "Fuck It" and he peeled out of there in reverse.
He quickly decided he was NOT about to take me home, not with that guy in pursuit, but it was late and we were in a quiet suburban subdivision with no place open, ...and these were the days prior to cell phones.
There was no telling who this crazy guy was, what he was on, and what he was capable of, and with him chasing after us, there was no way he was going to lead him straight to my house. He could have been a nut job, ...or he could have been a "complication" of the extended family business
F decided to head straight to the police station, and took the quickest route which fortuitously was NOT the main road. It was a back road that was barely travelled at night, was riddled with pot holes, and had no streetlights or traffic lights. This gave us the added benefit of being able to speed like the wind without worrying about possibly crashing into other cars or a pedestrian, as well it lent us a bit of privacy and the cover of darkness in the event he caught up with us, ...and we might have had to ...put an abrupt end to the situation without prying eyes, or the need to answer a bunch of pesky questions.
F knew every bump and pot hole in that road, and was able to deftly avert every single one of them, in the dark, even in reverse. The mysterious stranger on the other hand had a rather difficult bumpy ride. LOL.
By the time we had enough headway on the guy, F was able to spin the car around, and we continued at top speed, only this time, in forward. The stranger was still chasing us, and he was pissed.
We were able to get back on to the main road, and ran every red light on the way. The stranger was still in hot pursuit, and he too was paying no heed to red lights. Thank goodness F had a very powerful engine in his car. The stranger could barely keep up, but he was hot on our heels and determined. We finally arrived at the police station during a shift change. We came barreling in like a bat out of hell, like the devil himself was on our tail, and F spins the car into a screeching 180 in front of the entrance. I jump out and run right past these dazed cops who are like WTF?!?! ...and seconds later they see another car come peeling into the parking lot, stop and the driver starts to exit. Then he turned himself around, saw all the cop cars lined up, realized where he was and hightailed it out of there.
The cops were like what's going on? They have cameras all over the parking lot as well as even approaching the lot, and the guy who watched the monitors took the whole thing in. We told them what happened, and since there were about 6 cops who grabbed his plates as he was trying to leave the lot, they immediately started investigating him based on that, since we couldn't tell them who he was or why he wanted me. They refused to give us his name or his address, but, that was information we wanted, We wanted to know who the heck he was, so at one point after I'd managed to calm down, my boyfriend distracted one of the cops, while I peeked at the sheet to get his name & address, ...again, just in case we weren't able to get a satisfactory resolution through the proper channels.
My boyfriend called his brother, telling him he needed to switch cars. So he had his brother drive up with a fresh car, we made the switch, and proceeded over to the guys house and set up a little surveillance of our own.
This guy had been so angry and so pissed off that I not only refused to get in his car, but that I also tried to get away from him, he was flipping mad. And his busted up rims from chasing us down the back roads, didn't contribute anything positive to his mood either. He was like a bull, seeing nothing but red. He was so wired up, he hadn't even realized he had chased us right into a police station. When he came to his senses, and realized he had chased us into a police station, he hightailed it out of there,
He gets home, ...and first thing he did was grab a bottle. BIG MISTAKE!
Cause the cops are just about to pay him a little visit.
So we're out front of his house parked a discreet distance away observing what was taking place. There must have been at least 6 or 7 squad cars, the cops having smelled alcohol, have now got him walking a straight line, making him touch his nose, balance on one foot. The whole time all the squad cars have their cherries flashing and lighting up the quiet neighbourhood, spotlighting this guy on his front lawn for all his neighbours to see. They put him through the freaking ringer. We observed the whole thing parked up the street a discreet distance away in a different car.
It turns out our mysterious stranger had a teenage daughter was out past curfew, ...so he got in his car and went looking for her. When he saw us parked at the dead end, he thought I was her. And the reason he kept looking straight ahead and refusing to even look at us, was because he didn't want to possibly see his daughter, his baby girl, in a potentially "adult-like" situation. The reason he looked like he was about to lose it, was because he was about to lose it. It was bad enough she wasn't even suppose to go out, ...on a school night no less, but she not only defies him, and goes out, ...but she stayed out past her curfew, ...and here he catches her parked at a dead end, cuddling up with some strange man he's never met, ...but then she makes matters worse by refusing to get in his car, ...and runs from him. Making him chase her, banging up his car rims, and messing up his alignment in the process?!?!
He was half way out of his car, about to follow me into the station, when he got his first good look at me, and realized that I was NOT his daughter! It was only then that he realized, he had actually chased us into the police station. It all hit him all at once, ...and he decided to make a hasty retreat, but it was too late. The cops already had his license plates, ...and they were putting him through the paces. They put him through HELL!
I can laugh about it now. We were laughing about it a week after, ...but in the heat of the moment, neither I nor my boyfriend saw any humour in the situation. Hilariously enough both he and my ex laugh about it to this very day. About six years later, my ex bought three houses on that street. One for him, one for his brother, and the third for his little sister. So now, they're neighbours, and laugh about it, ...but it all could have ended very differently.
I still to this day laugh my ass off when I just picture how much shit his poor daughter got in when she got home that night. I'd be willing to bet good money she never once broke curfew after that, ...by the time he finally let her out of the house that is. ;D
-
Yeah, it is interesting stuff. The whole thing is really something.
For a person with such a start in life, though (if the essence of the article is to be believed), he sure made some nifty connections along the way.
Those nifty connections could be the reason why charges are taking so long
-
Shred what? Fiancé says she is afraid. 911 operator says she sounded afraid. Sheriff says they both looked afraid. So, what, call them all liars?
Of course he was afraid. He had just shot & killed an elderly mute disabled vet with Alzheimer's.
If I had discovered I had fucked up so royally, ID be afraid too!
-
Of course he was afraid. He had just shot & killed an elderly mute disabled vet with Alzheimer's.
If I had discovered I had fucked up so royally, ID be afraid too!
He wasn't mute. ::)
-
Shred what? Fiancé says she is afraid. 911 operator says she sounded afraid. Sheriff says they both looked afraid. So, what, call them all liars?
fear is not black or white, on or off. Further more, as how scared a person is varies so do does someone else's interpretation of how scared a person is.
You are not taking into account that there are different levels of fear/being afraid again
-
The last 10 years have been so incredibly intense – one wrong move and it could change your life forever. I was blessed enough to have a sister who supported me, guided me and put me on a path for success.”
*
from here:
http://www.chattanoogan.com/2012/8/22/232546/z/Sports/Schedules-and-Scores.aspx
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
-
That's not an example of shredding anything.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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
-
tony,
Should Hendrix receive ZERO charge? Or a small charge?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
they still havent decided on this shit yet?
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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/
-
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/
-
I guess being Politically connected has its privileges.
btw: I didn't say he had been charged. What I said was that the decision to charge him had already been made. The fact that it has taken this long to release a statement that he is not being charged tells me there was some negotiations behind the scenes to not go ahead with charging him after all.
Way to go stupid American Justice.! This crazy scared fuckwad fires into a shadow for not speaking killing a man, and he walks. Meanwhile an honourable soldier discharges his firearm after being knocked to the ground and mobbed by numerous unknown assailants, only injuring his attacker and he gets 25 to life!!!
-
btw: I didn't say he had been charged. What I said was that the decision to charge him had already been made. The fact that it has taken this long to release a statement that he is not being charged tells me there was some negotiations behind the scenes to not go ahead with charging him after all.
O Rly?
My understanding is that Hendrix has now been charged for the shooting.
-
O Rly?
I stand corrected. :)
Am very surprised because I was certain I had simply stated the decision to charge him had already been made, ...but there you show a quote with my own words which I don't remember making. I find it odd that that thread could drag out for 34 pages with no charges laid, without someone calling me out, ...especially YOU.
Oh we'll, I guess I'll never know if I actually wrote that, or if a devious, deceptive mod altered my words.
Either way, it doesn't matter, it won't bring an innocent dead man back to life, and the administration os US gun laws is still fvcked up south of the border.
-
I stand corrected. :)
Am very surprised because I was certain I had simply stated the decision to charge him had already been made, ...but there you show a quote with my own words which I don't remember making. I find it odd that that thread could drag out for 34 pages with no charges laid, without someone calling me out, ...especially YOU.
Oh we'll, I guess I'll never know if I actually wrote that, or if a devious, deceptive mod altered my words.
Either way, it doesn't matter, it won't bring an innocent dead man back to life, and the administration os US gun laws is still fvcked up south of the border.
Oh this the "how many times can you catch me lying in one thread" game? I'll play. :)
It wasn't earlier in the day. It was 2:30 a.m.
Where are you getting the information that he has already been charged?
Georgia prosecutors say they are trying to determine whether to charge a homeowner with a crime after he shot an elderly Alzheimers patient as the man was trying to get into his house during the middle of the night.
The man who fired the shot had moved into the neighborhood just days earlier, police said. The victim had been wandering in the cold for hours with his two dogs, and after he was shot one of his dogs laid across his body protectively and had to be pried away by animal control.
In the coming weeks, authorities from the Walker County District Attorney's and sheriff's offices will meet to determine whether to file charges against Joe Hendrix, 34, who fatally shot Ronald Westbrook, 72, on Nov. 27.
. . .
http://abcnews.go.com/US/da-mulls-shooting-alzheimers-patient-enter-home/story?id=21080904
The shooting occured at 2:30am, HOWEVER, it was earlier in the day that the elderly man had his encounter with the police officer who suggested he go home because he was dressed inappropriately for the weather.
Not that I'm casting blame on the officer he encountered earlier in the day, ...but if you see an elderly man, shuffling around ON FOOT, not dressed properly for the weather, carrying a bunch of mail, and stating he lived 5 miles away, ...wouldn't that be a bit of a clue that something was askew?
I can recall another guy who encountered police while carrying 2 pieces of mail (in his possessions) belonging to someone else, and he ended up beaten, tasered, and crying for his Daddy before his life was ended, ...but then again, he didn't belong to a certain demographic that gets treated with kindness & courtesy by police officers.
It's too bad Mr. Westbrook was an elderly white middle class man from the suburbs. If he wasn't, the cop he encountered might have done a stop & frisk, detained him and inadvertently saved his life. :-\
I do not remember exactly which source it was, however, it stated that he was indeed being charged. It was a delayed decision to lay the charges, however, they finally concluded it was appropriate.
The widow has stated she didn't think charges were warranted, however, it was not her call to make.
Do you ever get tired of being wrong?
I've asked you several times in this thread, but let me ask again: what is your source for your statement that he has already been charged or a decision to charge him has already been made?
Now that's two lies just on this page. I could go find the others in this thread about you claiming you had a 140 and/or 160 IQ, that the man was a deaf mute, etc., if you want? I like this game. :D
-
Oh this the "how many times can you catch me lying in one thread" game? I'll play. :)
Now that's two lies just on this page. I could go find the others in this thread about you claiming you had a 140 and/or 160 IQ, that the man was a deaf mute, etc., if you want? I like this game. :D
Of course you like "the game". Finally you have a game from which you can emerge a winner.
You're always a winner when you're the only one playing. Have a good night, ...oh, and Get a Life! ::)
-
Of course you like "the game". Finally you have a game from which you can emerge a winner.
You're always a winner when you're the only one playing. Have a good night, ...oh, and Get a Life! ::)
Well that's no fun. >:(
But the truth patrol is ready for your next whopper. Good night. :)
-
When I was looking around on this case, seemed to be a lot of titles on the search page that suggested he had been charged. It had to do with thread titles people made (that appeared to be copied from MSM accounts).
-
they decided he didn't break the law... but wow, he sure was reckless.
common sense, people. YOU DONT FIRE YOUR GUN until you know what you're shooting at.
If you're ever scared enough to SHOOT, and there's an exit - you #@*&^*@#& take it and get out of there!
Any time a person enters a situation - fires without even being touched or even knowing what he/she is firing at...
it could have been an injured cop, for pete's sake, with a broken jaw and blood leaking out of his head. It could have been anything. It could have been an old man, lost.
This dickhead that fired his weapon without knowing what was back there... well, anyone who supports firing of a gun with such carelessness... would you liek hendrix living on YOUR street? Do you want this guy living next door, OPENING FIRE into BUSHES when he's scared because he doesn't want to wait for 911 to show up?
LOL @ anyone that sees this as a "win". one day, let's hope you're not having a stroke, you crawl for help, you knock on door next door, you crawl away, and the neighbor executes you because you didn't 'obey his verbal command fast enough'.
-
Where have I heard something like this before? Oh I know. Right here:
"Georgia man who shot wandering Alzheimer’s patient will not face charges"
http://rt.com/usa/georgia-alzheimers-shot-charges-302/
hmmm you mean so it all the stupid shit spewed by 240, jack, jagson was all emotional bull shit?
-
hmmm you mean so it all the stupid shit spewed by 240, jack, jagson was all emotional bull shit?
Pretty much.
-
Still think Hendrix should have got charged.
Is there any other dead horses I can kick around here?
;D
-
Still think Hendrix should have got charged.
Is there any other dead horses I can kick around here?
;D
If it was the exact same scenario and he shot a guy that was there to rob/murder him would you feel the same way?
-
If it was the exact same scenario and he shot a guy that was there to rob/murder him would you feel the same way?
Murder no
Robbery depends.
-
Murder no
Robbery depends.
Robbery??? How so?
-
Robbery??? How so?
If a person jiggles your door handle in the middle of the night and then walks around to the side of your house, doesn't answer questions when confronted and walks towards you I don't think you have the right to shot and kill him.
Dam horse!
-
If a person jiggles your door handle in the middle of the night and then walks around to the side of your house, doesn't answer questions when confronted and walks towards you I don't think you have the right to shot and kill him.
Dam horse!
Hendrix didn't know he was shooting a war hero with dimentia.
he just thought he was shooting a silhouette. I'm pretty sure, in Georgia, you're allowed to waste any silhouette that disobeys you.
-
lol
Tony was dead on in this thread.
-
Murder no
Robbery depends.
how are you supposed to know Oz?
you mean I have to ask the mother fucker if he intends on murdering me or just robbing me before I can defend myself?
-
how are you supposed to know Oz?
you mean I have to ask the mother fucker if he intends on murdering me or just robbing me before I can defend myself?
Like I said. It depends. Give me some examples an I will tell what I think. In the Hendrix incident I believe it's something around the level of man slaughter and he should have been charged.
-
Like I said. It depends. Give me some examples an I will tell what I think. In the Hendrix incident I believe it's something around the level of man slaughter and he should have been charged.
again in the exact same scenario that hendrix was in. If it wasnt an old man but a man who was intent on doing him harm either by robbing or killing him and his girlfriend. If it had turned out that the unknown person approaching who wasnt responding to commands and wasnt answering was holding a steel tire iron instead of a flash light and had malicious intent would you still think hendrix should be charged?
-
again in the exact same scenario that hendrix was in. If it wasnt an old man but a man who was intent on doing him harm either by robbing or killing him and his girlfriend. If it had turned out that the unknown person approaching who wasnt responding to commands and wasnt answering was holding a steel tire iron instead of a flash light and had malicious intent would you still think hendrix should be charged?
look, hendrix was an idiot. They chose not to charge him, he got lucky legally, but he's a stone cold fcking idiot tony - NONE of us want joe hendrix firing a gun into the bushes at noises, on our blocks. your argument was "what if the unknown shape was dude with tire iron" can easily be neutralized with "What if it was an old man with debilitating disease"?
Look, hendrix was pissed the cops took so long, so he went outside to make sure the person didn't get away. Old man wasn't posing a threat, and the only threat was inside hendrix's head after chasing something into dark bushes at 2am.
it was legal "enough" to dodge charges - in georgia, who makes FL looks like MENSA. But none of us want a jackass like Hendrix firing bullets into shapes if he lives next door to use. Those bushes make terrible backstops :(
-
So many of Tonymctones arguments are neutralized.
-
So many of Tonymctones arguments are neutralized.
LMFAO you mean the ones the grand jury completely agreed with?
hahah who the fuck are you now?
-
look, hendrix was an idiot. They chose not to charge him, he got lucky legally, but he's a stone cold fcking idiot tony - NONE of us want joe hendrix firing a gun into the bushes at noises, on our blocks. your argument was "what if the unknown shape was dude with tire iron" can easily be neutralized with "What if it was an old man with debilitating disease"?
Look, hendrix was pissed the cops took so long, so he went outside to make sure the person didn't get away. Old man wasn't posing a threat, and the only threat was inside hendrix's head after chasing something into dark bushes at 2am.
it was legal "enough" to dodge charges - in georgia, who makes FL looks like MENSA. But none of us want a jackass like Hendrix firing bullets into shapes if he lives next door to use. Those bushes make terrible backstops :(
no the argument cant be neutralized by "what if it was an old man" b/c we have seen how that situation plays out and guess what slick...I WAS FUCKING RIGHT!!!!
Look, hendrix was pissed the cops took so long, so he went outside to make sure the person didn't get away. Old man wasn't posing a threat, and the only threat was inside hendrix's head after chasing something into dark bushes at 2am.
there you go with your usual making shit up....tell us all again how zimmerman was chasing trayvon with his gun out waving it around and yelling racist remarks...
hahahah what a fucking moron.
-
no the argument cant be neutralized by "what if it was an old man" b/c we have seen how that situation plays out and guess what slick...I WAS FUCKING RIGHT!!!!
LOL! You were right? Dude, he skated in fcking GEORGIA. If there was ever a place in the USA where a man can fire a gun into shadows and kill a disabled war vet and avoid being charged, I'm pretty sure it's Georgia lol.
You act like it's some heroic win for gun lovers everywhere.
No, no no... It's simply an immature, emotional prick getting away with killing someone. No need to run into that yard issuing orders, and firing into the unknown. Police were on their way.
Fcking celebrations going on because this assclown wasn't charged? Gimme a break. He's a piece of shit that killed an old guy cause he couldn't just sit in the house and let police do their job. They were safely indoors. He chose to run out and fire a gun, with police almost there.
-
LOL! You were right? Dude, he skated in fcking GEORGIA. If there was ever a place in the USA where a man can fire a gun into shadows and kill a disabled war vet and avoid being charged, I'm pretty sure it's Georgia lol.
You act like it's some heroic win for gun lovers everywhere.
No, no no... It's simply an immature, emotional prick getting away with killing someone. No need to run into that yard issuing orders, and firing into the unknown. Police were on their way.
Fcking celebrations going on because this assclown wasn't charged? Gimme a break. He's a piece of shit that killed an old guy cause he couldn't just sit in the house and let police do their job. They were safely indoors. He chose to run out and fire a gun, with police almost there.
Im not acting like is a heroic win for gun lovers everywhere...IM ACTING LIKE ITS A HEROIC WIN FOR COMMON SENSE EVERYWHERE.
Which certainly explains why a fucking moron such as yourself is so upset by it.
-
Im not acting like is a heroic win for gun lovers everywhere...IM ACTING LIKE ITS A HEROIC WIN FOR COMMON SENSE EVERYWHERE.
Was Hendrix showing "common sense" by exiting a home in which he was safely locked, with police moments away, to put himself in a dark scary yard with an unknown person(s)?
Was Hendrix showing "common sense" by screaming at *something* in a bush in the darkness to get on the ground, then firing 4 rounds into it, without knowing was it was?
See, to me, both of these questions deliver a definite "NO! He was NOT showing common sense!" Therefore, any win for him/his actions is NOT a win for common sense.
It's a win for the small segment of the population that prefers to rush into initiating one-sided shootouts with unknown figures in the darkness of the yard, before the police can arrive with a spotlight and quickly sort out the situation. If Hendrix just waits another 3 minutes, police wrap the old man in a blanket and take him home. THAT is the common sense move. Sending him home in the bodybag was a rash, emotion, angry, bonehead idiotic move. Definitely NOT a win for common sense, IMHO.
-
Was Hendrix showing "common sense" by exiting a home in which he was safely locked, with police moments away, to put himself in a dark scary yard with an unknown person(s)?
Was Hendrix showing "common sense" by screaming at *something* in a bush in the darkness to get on the ground, then firing 4 rounds into it, without knowing was it was?
See, to me, both of these questions deliver a definite "NO! He was NOT showing common sense!" Therefore, any win for him/his actions is NOT a win for common sense.
It's a win for the small segment of the population that prefers to rush into initiating one-sided shootouts with unknown figures in the darkness of the yard, before the police can arrive with a spotlight and quickly sort out the situation. If Hendrix just waits another 3 minutes, police wrap the old man in a blanket and take him home. THAT is the common sense move. Sending him home in the bodybag was a rash, emotion, angry, bonehead idiotic move. Definitely NOT a win for common sense, IMHO.
was hendrix within his rights to leave his house to protect his property?
was hendrix within his rights to defend himself from a person who had tried to gain access to his home in the early morning hours, who would not respond to commands to stop or identify himself?
Sending him home in the bodybag was a rash, emotion, angry, bonehead idiotic move.
There you go making shit up again, what a fucking retard you are...
Definitely NOT a win for common sense, IMHO.
doesnt suprise me, you dont generally display any amount of common sense.
-
was hendrix within his rights to leave his house to protect his property?
You are suddenly changing the debate from "common sense" to "legal".
He lives in shit ass georgia and got away with it. Legally, he's good.
COMMON SENSE - which you intro'd - really doesn't live near Hendrix. Sorry, but running into your yard at 2am to shoot at shadows because you don't feel like waiting for popo to arrives.
Legally, yes, he was covered. Common sense? Hendrix was the polar opposite. Common sense says you wait inside and let the cops deal with the person.
-
You are suddenly changing the debate from "common sense" to "legal".
He lives in shit ass georgia and got away with it. Legally, he's good.
COMMON SENSE - which you intro'd - really doesn't live near Hendrix. Sorry, but running into your yard at 2am to shoot at shadows because you don't feel like waiting for popo to arrives.
Legally, yes, he was covered. Common sense? Hendrix was the polar opposite. Common sense says you wait inside and let the cops deal with the person.
in this instance legality is common sense to those of use with common sense.....
-
again in the exact same scenario that hendrix was in. If it wasnt an old man but a man who was intent on doing him harm either by robbing or killing him and his girlfriend. If it had turned out that the unknown person approaching who wasnt responding to commands and wasnt answering was holding a steel tire iron instead of a flash light and had malicious intent would you still think hendrix should be charged?
How can the intent to do harm be proven?
-
in this instance legality is common sense to those of use with common sense.....
sorry, that doesn't work. legality is either common sense 100% of the time, or none of the time... you can't just randomly pick and choose which times they're connected. It's your opinion, and we're talking facts here.
tony, would you want Hendrix living next door to you? yes or no?
-
How can the intent to do harm be proven?
ahh so in your mind b/c intent to harm cant be proven you have to wait until someone tries to harm you before you can take measures to prevent potential harm?
In other words I have to wait for the guy to swing at me with the metal tire iron before i can defend myself?
-
sorry, that doesn't work. legality is either common sense 100% of the time, or none of the time... you can't just randomly pick and choose which times they're connected. It's your opinion, and we're talking facts here.
tony, would you want Hendrix living next door to you? yes or no?
absolutely they can coincide with one another in certain instances and not in others....LMFAO are you fucking serious moron?
-
absolutely they can coincide with one another in certain instances and not in others....LMFAO are you fucking serious moron?
Would you want JoeHendrix living next door to you? Yes or no?
-
Would you want JoeHendrix living next door to you? Yes or no?
wouldnt care one way or the other
-
wouldnt care one way or the other
would you want a joe hendrix living in every house on your block?
You know, the kinda dude that panics and fires 4 bullets into the backyard when something startles him? A dude who has to get his trigger time before the police can get there?
Sheeeit... anyone with common sense would want that dude living on the other side of the country lol. His reckless shooting, willingness to fire at the unknown, heck, where did the other 3 bullets land? lol
-
would you want a joe hendrix living in every house on your block?
You know, the kinda dude that panics and fires 4 bullets into the backyard when something startles him? A dude who has to get his trigger time before the police can get there?
Sheeeit... anyone with common sense would want that dude living on the other side of the country lol. His reckless shooting, willingness to fire at the unknown, heck, where did the other 3 bullets land? lol
again wouldnt bother me one way or another.
They guy tried to gain entrance into his house, called out to find out what he wanted, ordered the guy to stop.
I wouldnt have a problem with a neighbor like hendrix or a block full of neighbors like hendrix...
-
ahh so in your mind b/c intent to harm cant be proven you have to wait until someone tries to harm you before you can take measures to prevent potential harm?
In other words I have to wait for the guy to swing at me with the metal tire iron before i can defend myself?
Your post to me before this included an incorrect assumption and so does this one.
First off how do you conclude someone intended to harm someone?
I want to know the basis you use to figure that. How can you expect me to answer the question otherwise?
Secondly, as for your second incorrect assumption, how can you stereotype me into that category of people who practically have to be harmed to justify defending themselves? Did you do come to this based solely on your first incorrect assumption?
I will tell you exactly what I think about any given situation and my answer will be my own. I have no problem calling out either side of the political isle. You know this.
To save us some back and forth posting over your incorrect assumptions and stereotyping I will give my opinion on 4 scenarios based on the original details of the case. Understand this though. My opinion can change as the details change.
Scenario 1. The original Hendrix case with all known facts. No way he shouldn't get charged for the many reasons I listed in the thread.
Scenario 2. Lets Say he had a crow bar in his hand and Hendrix saw it when he shot him. Still, Hendrix wrongfully shot him.
Scenario 3. Let's say he used the crow bar to attempt to break in the house, by breaking a window or prying into the door. Hendrix is justified.
Scenario 4. Let's say Hendrix saw he had a gun and then shot him. Hendrix is justified.
-
Your post to me before this included an incorrect assumption and so does this one.
First off how do you conclude someone intended to harm someone?
I want to know the basis you use to figure that. How can you expect me to answer the question otherwise?
Secondly, as for your second incorrect assumption, how can you stereotype me into that category of people who practically have to be harmed to justify defending themselves? Did you do come to this based solely on your first incorrect assumption?
I will tell you exactly what I think about any given situation and my answer will be my own. I have no problem calling out either side of the political isle. You know this.
To save us some back and forth posting over your incorrect assumptions and stereotyping I will give my opinion on 4 scenarios based on the original details of the case. Understand this though. My opinion can change as the details change.
Scenario 1. The original Hendrix case with all known facts. No way he shouldn't get charged for the many reasons I listed in the thread.
Scenario 2. Lets Say he had a crow bar in his hand and Hendrix saw it when he shot him. Still, Hendrix wrongfully shot him.
Scenario 3. Let's say he used the crow bar to attempt to break in the house, by breaking a window or prying into the door. Hendrix is justified.
Scenario 4. Let's say Hendrix saw he had a gun and then shot him. Hendrix is justified.
your question was how can one know intent?
The fact is in the moment unless the person acts to harm you or tells you they are going to, you cannot know intent. So the defacto stance youre taking is that unless they act or tell you they are going to you cannot know intent and therefore cannot defend yourself.
If the fact a person tried to gain access to your home, would not respond verbally to any calls, kept advancing when told not to and was holding what could have been a blunt object doesnt raise to the level of justified self defense in your mind, what does short of them actually trying to harm you?
-
your question was how can one know intent?
The fact is in the moment unless the person acts to harm you or tells you they are going to, you cannot know intent. So the defacto stance youre taking is that unless they act or tell you they are going to you cannot know intent and therefore cannot defend yourself.
That all depends on many things. Provide other examples or use the ones I provided. Otherwise all YOU are doing is.making assumptions again.
If the fact a person tried to gain access to your home, would not respond verbally to any calls, kept advancing when told not to and was holding what could have been a blunt object doesnt raise to the level of justified self defense in your mind, what does short of them actually trying to harm you?
No, the man jiggled the handle. Nothing more. That does not constitute a B and E. Hendrix left his home when he was NOT in any danger, sought out the person who.was not in the act of B and E committing no crime and shot him. Hendrix should.be charged.
If you want to debate scenario 2 based on the details of the Hendrix case. There was no attempted B and E hence, Hendrix had no reason to think a crow bar was meant for harm especially since it was never used at the door. Hendrix didn't have a legitimate reason to.believe he and his family was in danger and showed by leaving his family and venturing outside. He then shoots a man with a crow bar who could.have had it for a number of.reasons not.involving violence or B and E.
PS I understand how the law worked in the actual case and see why they ruled it the way they did. I don't agree with it though.
-
That all depends on many things. Provide other examples or use the ones I provided. Otherwise all YOU are doing is.making assumptions again.
No, the man jiggled the handle. Nothing more. That does not constitute a B and E. Hendrix left his home when he was NOT in any danger, sought out the person who.was not in the act of B and E committing no crime and shot him. Hendrix should.be charged.
If you want to debate scenario 2 based on the details of the Hendrix case. There was no attempted B and E hence, Hendrix had no reason to think a crow bar was meant for harm especially since it was never used at the door. Hendrix didn't have a legitimate reason to.believe he and his family was in danger and showed by leaving his family and venturing outside. He then shoots a man with a crow bar who could.have had it for a number of.reasons not.involving violence or B and E.
PS I understand how the law worked in the actual case and see why they ruled it the way they did. I don't agree with it though.
you have the right to defend your life and PROPERTY...understand that means he is well within his right to go outside.
I never said the man tried to B&E but the fact is YES he did try and gain entry into the house, that is indisputable. He did not fire the gun as soon as he opened the door so whether or not he felt their was reason to fear for his life at that time means absolutely nothing. What matters is whether or not he felt his life was in danger when he pulled the trigger.
If you dont think that the fact a person tried to gain access to your home, would not respond verbally to any calls, kept advancing when told not to and was holding what could have been a blunt object means you should be fearful....I seriously do not know what would besides someone actually trying to harm you.
-
you have the right to defend your life and PROPERTY...understand that means he is well within his right to go outside.
I don't believe the Hendrix incident falls into this category. I am pretty sure that wasn't the key to Hendrix being not charged. I think it had to with him fearing for his life.
I never said the man tried to B&E but the fact is YES he did try and gain entry into the house, that is indisputable.
B and E is a crime. Jiggling a door handle isn't. A door handle Jiggling doesn't mean anyone is in danger. Jiggling a door handle doesn't mean a person is trying to illegally gain entry into a house to commit a crime.
He did not fire the gun as soon as he opened the door so whether or not he felt their was reason to fear for his life at that time means absolutely nothing. What matters is whether or not he felt his life was in danger when he pulled the trigger.
I think his "feeling" has to have some factual basis for it to be justified. I don't think it was in this case.
If you dont think that the fact a person tried to gain access to your home, would not respond verbally to any calls, kept advancing when told not to and was holding what could have been a blunt object means you should be fearful....I seriously do not know what would besides someone actually trying to harm you.
I assume we are talking about scenario #2. He wasn't charging him. He's not raising the crow bar either. Back away and continue to warn him. He's walking towards you, crow bar down, you are in no danger. You have a gun. You keep your distance. The police are on their way. He charges, he raises crow bar you shot.... justified.
-
B and E is a crime. Jiggling a door handle isn't. A door handle Jiggling doesn't mean anyone is in danger. Jiggling a door handle doesn't mean a person is trying to illegally gain entry into a house to commit a crime.
Just standing my ground on behalf of my inanimate door.
-
Holy smokes. You guys are still at this? lol
I'm not sure this even went to a grand jury? It's over already.
-
Holy smokes. You guys are still at this? lol
I'm not sure this even went to a grand jury? It's over already.
Not really. We are using the incident as part of the discussion.
If it was the exact same scenario and he shot a guy that was there to rob/murder him would you feel the same way?
Murder no
Robbery depends.
-
Not really. We are using the incident as part of the discussion.
Sounds like you guys are still arguing over what happened and whether or not he should have been charged.
-
Sounds like you guys are still arguing over what happened and whether or not he should have been charged.
Its a case that has plenty of details saving us the need to invent a hypothetical scenario.
-
Its a case that has plenty of details saving us the need to invent a hypothetical scenario.
Why do you think this scenario would play out any differently if it happened again someplace else?
-
Why do you think this scenario would play out any differently if it happened again someplace else?
What do you mean?
From the POV of Hendrix, the Police, State laws etc.?
-
What do you mean?
From the POV of Hendrix, the Police, State laws etc.?
I mean someone hearing a stranger trying to open their door at 0 dark thirty, calling 911, shooting the person who was trying to enter their home, followed by no criminal charges. Why do you think someone would be charged if this same scenario happened somewhere else? I don't even think it's a close call, which is why I'm not even sure this went to a grand jury. And even if it did, the fact a grand jury didn't indict is a pretty strong indication that the shooting was justified.
So not sure exactly what you are guys are doing, except saying law enforcement got it wrong (or right)?
-
I mean someone hearing a stranger trying to open their door at 0 dark thirty, calling 911, shooting the person who was trying to enter their home, followed by no criminal charges. Why do you think someone would be charged if this same scenario happened somewhere else? I don't even think it's a close call, which is why I'm not even sure this went to a grand jury. And even if it did, the fact a grand jury didn't indict is a pretty strong indication that the shooting was justified.
So not sure exactly what you are guys are doing, except saying law enforcement got it wrong (or right)?
Tony doesn't think they got it wrong. I do.
If the person was trying to enter the home by means of an attempted B and E, such as using a crow bar to pry open a door or window, yes i think shooting in self defense would be justified in almost any circumstance. However, I am fairly sure in Cali, in that scenario Hendrix would be charged and i wouldn't agree with it.
But i don't see jiggling a door handle at any time of day as an attempted B and E.
-
Tony doesn't think they got it wrong. I do.
If the person was trying to enter the home by means of an attempted B and E, such as using a crow bar to pry open a door or window, yes i think shooting in self defense would be justified in almost any circumstance. However, I am fairly sure in Cali, in that scenario Hendrix would be charged and i wouldn't agree with it.
But i don't see jiggling a door handle at any time of day as an attempted B and E.
I doubt there is a breaking and entering requirement for someone to use deadly force. It's whether the person has a reasonable belief that they are about to suffer serious injury or death. I'm pretty sure that's the standard everywhere. And someone trying to open your front door in the early hours of the morning (before sunrise) creates a reasonable belief that an intruder is trying to enter your home. And when all the other facts are added to that, you get the outcome we had with Hendrix.
But there you go dragging me into this dead horse beating contest. lol :)
-
I doubt there is a breaking and entering requirement for someone to use deadly force. It's whether the person has a reasonable belief that they are about to suffer serious injury or death. I'm pretty sure that's the standard everywhere. And someone trying to open your front door in the early hours of the morning (before sunrise) creates a reasonable belief that an intruder is trying to enter your home. And when all the other facts are added to that, you get the outcome we had with Hendrix.
But there you go dragging me into this dead horse beating contest. lol :)
Zombie Horse, of course, of course.... ;D
-
Zombie Horse, of course, of course.... ;D
Of course. :D
-
Why do you think this scenario would play out any differently if it happened again someplace else?
LOLZERCOPTER.
Yes, i'm sure in NYC, you could walk outside and fire into a disobedient silhouette, killing a disabled war vet, and you woudln't be charged.
The fact he lives in Georgia - the one place not called Tennessee that Floridians make fun of - speaks volumes.
-
LOLZERCOPTER.
Yes, i'm sure in NYC, you could walk outside and fire into a disobedient silhouette, killing a disabled war vet, and you woudln't be charged.
The fact he lives in Georgia - the one place not called Tennessee that Floridians make fun of - speaks volumes.
Yes I'm sure you constantly just make stuff up, and that you never get tired of being wrong. But you are quite the little trooper. :)
-
I don't believe the Hendrix incident falls into this category. I am pretty sure that wasn't the key to Hendrix being not charged. I think it had to with him fearing for his life.
It does if you continue to bring up that he went outside like that in some way bears any weight on his mindset when he shot the guy
B and E is a crime. Jiggling a door handle isn't. A door handle Jiggling doesn't mean anyone is in danger. Jiggling a door handle doesn't mean a person is trying to illegally gain entry into a house to commit a crime.
I think his "feeling" has to have some factual basis for it to be justified. I don't think it was in this case.
So again, youre back to you have to wait someone actually acts on their intent before you can take steps to defend yourself?
The factual basis is the man did try and gain entry into his house, he would not respond to his verbal communication, he would not stop when he told him to (i believe hendrix even told him he had a gun)...Those are facts........
-
LOLZERCOPTER.
Yes, i'm sure in NYC, you could walk outside and fire into a disobedient silhouette, killing a disabled war vet, and you woudln't be charged.
yup b/c thats exactly what happend here
-
yup b/c thats exactly what happend here
'
dude, come on. BB is acting like there isn't variance from state to state. If zimmerman caps Trayvon in NYC, does anyone think the outcome is the same? lol
-
'
dude, come on. BB is acting like there isn't variance from state to state. If zimmerman caps Trayvon in NYC, does anyone think the outcome is the same? lol
legally it should be and all things being equal yes it probably would have resulted in the same outcome.
-
legally it should be and all things being equal yes it probably would have resulted in the same outcome.
So um, is there any variance in standards for justification of self-defense from state to state?
Things like "Stand your ground" exist in FL. Does that exist in every state, or just 2/3 of them?
-
So um, is there any variance in standards for justification of self-defense from state to state?
Things like "Stand your ground" exist in FL. Does that exist in every state, or just 2/3 of them?
stand your ground was never used as a defense in the zimmerman trial..............
-
stand your ground was never used as a defense in the zimmerman trial..............
his defense team said it would be. on a thursday night.
then the author of the law said it wasn't related.
sunday morning, his legal team went on the sunday news to abandon it.
remember?
So while it wasn't used in court, his D team sure as shit put it into the public realm, giving bloomberg ammo to attack gun rights. Repubs are just SO BAD at picking heroes lol. Ah, zimm was such a bag of shit... it's just that most repubs hated trayvon worse.
-
his defense team said it would be. on a thursday night.
then the author of the law said it wasn't related.
sunday morning, his legal team went on the sunday news to abandon it.
remember?
So while it wasn't used in court, his D team sure as shit put it into the public realm, giving bloomberg ammo to attack gun rights. Repubs are just SO BAD at picking heroes lol. Ah, zimm was such a bag of shit... it's just that most repubs hated trayvon worse.
so like I said, STAND YOUR GROUND WAS NEVER USED IN THE ZIMMERMAN TRIAL.
meaning, IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HIM BEING ACQUITTED.
-
so like I said, STAND YOUR GROUND WAS NEVER USED IN THE ZIMMERMAN TRIAL.
meaning, IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH HIM BEING ACQUITTED.
it was sure used to influence potential jurors.
unless you think it was just an "accident" they leaked it then backed off it so fast? lol
defense teams do this all the time to taint jury pools.
-
it was sure used to influence potential jurors.
unless you think it was just an "accident" they leaked it then backed off it so fast? lol
defense teams do this all the time to taint jury pools.
Those who disliked Stand Your Ground and wanted the law repealed contributed as well. Many used the zimmerman case as justification to repeal the law. For them it was a "I told you so" moment they couldn't pass up exploiting.
-
Those who disliked Stand Your Ground and wanted the law repealed contributed as well. Many used the zimmerman case as justification to repeal the law. For them it was a "I told you so" moment they couldn't pass up exploiting.
It was zimm's team that went on CNN and said he was going to use that defense. He intro'd it. It wasn't a liberal creation. He did that. Then the author went ballistic, said it was completely unrelated. So the zimm team changed strategies.
Anyone who says "technically, zimm never actually USED it, so you can't blame him"... well, Technically, obama never actually signed any anti-gun legislation, so I guess you can't shit on him for that either, right? Them's just words, right?
I have carried a gun since 97, and I GREATLY dislike the 'stand your ground' law. The old way, duty to retreat, worked just fine. Unless you have your back to a wall or there is immanent threat, you have a duty to take one step back. If BOTH parties do that, 99% of gun battles are avoided. It made it VERY clear who the aggressor was.
I dont get this insecure, pissy, puffed up, ILS-standing posture of "oh, I was just standing my ground." It's a bunch of ego-driven fools who are too insecure to just take one step back and let a situation diffuse.
-
It was zimm's team that went on CNN and said he was going to use that defense. He intro'd it. It wasn't a liberal creation. He did that. Then the author went ballistic, said it was completely unrelated. So the zimm team changed strategies.
Anyone who says "technically, zimm never actually USED it, so you can't blame him"... well, Technically, obama never actually signed any anti-gun legislation, so I guess you can't shit on him for that either, right? Them's just words, right?
I have carried a gun since 97, and I GREATLY dislike the 'stand your ground' law. The old way, duty to retreat, worked just fine. Unless you have your back to a wall or there is immanent threat, you have a duty to take one step back. If BOTH parties do that, 99% of gun battles are avoided. It made it VERY clear who the aggressor was.
I dont get this insecure, pissy, puffed up, ILS-standing posture of "oh, I was just standing my ground." It's a bunch of ego-driven fools who are too insecure to just take one step back and let a situation diffuse.
I didnt say liberals created it but they took the ball and ran with it.
-
It does if you continue to bring up that he went outside like that in some way bears any weight on his mindset when he shot the guy
I see him going outside as a indication that he wasn't that scared. No forced entry. Leaves his family from the safety of his house.
So again, youre back to you have to wait someone actually acts on their intent before you can take steps to defend yourself?
Yeah, otherwise innocent people get accidentally killed like in the Hendrix case. But i don't think this to the extent some states see it... Where for example you must practically catch them in the act of trying to kill you. Also i don't believe some states will see an attempted B & E as NOT justification for shooting in self defense. So i am not the guy you may be trying to make me out to be. I see it somewhere in the middle of "step on my property" (trespassing) an i have the right to shoot you. (inbred retard thinking) vs. unless you are in the act of stabbing me you don't have the right use force to defend yourself.
The world is not black and white Tony.
The factual basis is the man did try and gain entry into his house, he would not respond to his verbal communication, he would not stop when he told him to (i believe hendrix even told him he had a gun)...Those are facts........
Those facts are not near enough to justify shooting him. And if you really think so, remember, an innocent man died that night.
-
I didnt say liberals created it but they took the ball and ran with it.
well, they are liberals. it's what they do. Zimm did gun owners a huge disservice by giving the left that kind of "ammo" to work with.
All these gun owners were acting like zimmerman was some kinda hero or something. he was a drunk. he was a wifebeater. he shoved a cop. he voted obama. he was reckless with a gun. he lied to cops, and his own lawyer admitted it. Finally, he invoked SYG in the media, giving the dems plenty of ammo to shit on gun legislation in all 50 states for years to come.
Repubs love him because he shot trayvon. Standing alone, zimm is a bag of shit and no repub here wants zimmerman on their block. fighting cops, drunk, beating on women... he's a bag of shit. But suddenly he shoots trayvon and now they want to give him a parade.
-
well, they are liberals. it's what they do. Zimm did gun owners a huge disservice by giving the left that kind of "ammo" to work with.
All these gun owners were acting like zimmerman was some kinda hero or something. he was a drunk. he was a wifebeater. he shoved a cop. he voted obama. he was reckless with a gun. he lied to cops, and his own lawyer admitted it. Finally, he invoked SYG in the media, giving the dems plenty of ammo to shit on gun legislation in all 50 states for years to come.
Repubs love him because he shot trayvon. Standing alone, zimm is a bag of shit and no repub here wants zimmerman on their block. fighting cops, drunk, beating on women... he's a bag of shit. But suddenly he shoots trayvon and now they want to give him a parade.
I read this just for sh@$& and giggles. You did not disappoint. :) Pretty wild imagination.
-
I read this just for sh@$& and giggles. You did not disappoint. :) Pretty wild imagination.
Hey, the guy was a hero to some.
A whole lot of celebrating when this wife-beating obama voter beat the rap.
-
Hey, the guy was a hero to some.
A whole lot of celebrating when this wife-beating obama voter beat the rap.
Everything you said was either embellished or outright false. Tell the truth. It's refreshing. You probably look in the mirror and see Lou Ferrigno. lol
-
Everything you said was either embellished or outright false. Tell the truth. It's refreshing. You probably look in the mirror and see Lou Ferrigno. lol
And reflexively gives himself 20 dollars?
-
And reflexively gives himself 20 dollars?
Well played. :)