Florida's stand your ground defense used to shoot SUV full of loud teens

[charl_huntress]

It can be absolutely isolated in terms of the gun part...and there might be no way of knowing he was prone to tat even if he had a 'history' of being of choleric temper. You just can't predict how a lot of this stuff will go down. You and I probably know people who are hot-tempered or what have you, but have no medical diagnosis or criminal record of it...so no way to legally indicate or prevent them from owning a firearm. And ever year there are acts of violence both gun-related and not b people who would not be expected of such by even those close to them. You can never know for sure...and you'd also have to account for all the ill-tempered people, both armed and not, who DON'T act out like this. How can we know that?

I agree this could be an isolated gun incident. For sure that could be the case. Yet, generally when something like this happens to people you get variations of reactions, but you'll usually hear I can see him doing something like this, or I'm totally shocked he did something like this. Even if there's no prior criminal history you'll hear this because it takes a certain kind of temperament in my view to do what he did. Everything leading up to the event, starting with him confronting the teams, leads me to believe this.

It's 'communicating' but not necessarily connecting or interacting. THere's a bit of a 'safety blanket' when done from afar that we don't have when face to face. As a result, we could be less prepared for the actual face to face times.

Hmmm... I can certainly understand that... It's kind of scary if you think of it that way because this sort of lack of inter-personal communication is sure the be the norm as we advance.

I think this idea of a 'vacuum' doesn't quite apply. Things add up differently for different people. And no, guns aren't supposed to empower people. They are, in a self-defense situation, the very last absolute emergency measure that may make a difference in surviving and dying. But you are responsible to do every thing you can in avoiding violence or even the implication of it just like you would if you were not armed. You should avoid confrontations just as much...moreso, even. The second you act more 'bold' or less responsibly solely because you are armed, you are abusing the right.

No, I view this differently. Guns are meant to empower as they can be used for protection or defense, or more plainly they can be used affirmatively. It's a way of viewing the instrument. It should never be viewed passively in my view. That's a mistake in my view.

I agree about avoiding confrontation in public and seeking alternatives for conflict resolution. However, a confrontation in the home is an invasion if it's not invited. Therein for me lies the difference for the instrument and the user. I don't expect anyone to try to resolve a home invasion or attempted/perceived home invasion peacefully. Doesn't mean it can't be solved that way though.

Again, this is why I'm not a fan of SYG outside of the home. The presumption of fear is much harder to prove because there are alternatives to how the conflict could have been resolved. Also, what one person would do in a situation over another seems almost the wrong criteria to use because the question has to be asked... How did you end up in that situation in the first place? And was it reasonable for you to be in that situation?

 

[charl_huntress]

Hear hear!


I live here. The local media, just like they did with the T & Z event, has made this one racial. Anyone who believes the T & Z event was about race is as ignorant as ignorant gets and is a useful idiot for the mass media's propaganda.

I've been counting on our local news' shows. Our reporters, for the last 6 or so black on white murder/attempted murder attacks, have not mentioned the race of either the attacker or the victims. As for this shooting at a local Gate Station, they never stop mentioning it. The local media is race baiting tbhis story just as much as jesse jackson, al sharpton, the new black panther party et cetera have ever race baited any event occurring in the past. What literally amazes me is that a lot of people on this board are falling for it hook, line, and sinker.

If the man is guilty of murder he will receive his sentence. This one isn;t about race, this one is about young folks "keeping it real" and older folks "drinking and carrying" in public.


Question, who recently said the following?:

"... walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved. ..."

1) George Zimmerman

2) George W. Bush

3) Jesse Jackson Sr.

4) Sarah Palin


Answer: # 3

lol....

I depise race baiting in the media and often wonder why others don't see it for continuing to cause the problems they despise. It is a bit perplexing.

 

[KalMart]

No, I view this differently. Guns are meant to empower as they can be used for protection or defense, or more plainly they can be used affirmatively. It's a way of viewing the instrument. It should never be viewed passively in my view. That's a mistake in my view.

I believe I was talking about a self-defense situation. In others it's certainly a tool, but not something that should dictate policy or even strategy. A peaceful resolution should always be considered first. If it can't be reached, then it's on.

I agree about avoiding confrontation in public and seeking alternatives for conflict resolution. However, a confrontation in the home is an invasion if it's not invited. Therein for me lies the difference for the instrument and the user. I don't expect anyone to try to resolve a home invasion or attempted/perceived home invasion peacefully. Doesn't mean it can't be solved that way though.

Again, measures should be taken to upgrade your home's security and so on...not to leave everything as is and just depend n the gun as being the difference. Perhaps even indicate that the house is armed as a deterrent. the firearm offers that extra last line of defense when all else fails, but it does not entitle one to lure or attempt capture.

Again, this is why I'm not a fan of SYG outside of the home. The presumption of fear is much harder to prove because there are alternatives to how the conflict could have been resolved. Also, what one person would do in a situation over another seems almost the wrong criteria to use because the question has to be asked... How did you end up in that situation in the first place? And was it reasonable for you to be in that situation?

Yep...'empowerment' is the wrong approach, but sadly often exercised. And this is coming from a lifelong and licensed gun owner.

 

[charl_huntress]

I believe I was talking about a self-defense situation. In others it's certainly a tool, but not something that should dictate policy or even strategy. A peaceful resolution should always be considered first. If it can't be reached, then it's on.

Sounds good to me... t:

Again, measures should be taken to upgrade your home's security and so on...not to leave everything as is and just depend n the gun as being the difference. Perhaps even indicate that the house is armed as a deterrent. the firearm offers that extra last line of defense when all else fails, but it does not entitle one to lure or attempt capture.

I agree with most of that, but for some the home security is a lock. My security system was massively expensive, but I could afford it. I'm not going to put that criteria on someone who might not be able to.

Yep...'empowerment' is the wrong approach, but sadly often exercised. And this is coming from a lifelong and licensed gun owner.

This is why I support SYG in the home. The presumption of fear is much more reasonable. I don't mind a person who has fear inside their home empowering themselves if they feel fear of invasion. By all means.... Arm up! Yet, if you're carrying a gun for personal protection 24/7 the burden for claiming defense has to be incredibly high if there are alternatives to solving the problem. Also the problem itself should be life threatening. My issue with incidents like the one in the OP is how do you rationalize defending yourself if you were being an ******* and put yourself in that situation in the first place.

 

[Sun_Down]

Question for you Sun_Down since you mentioned working in the legal field. Do you have to argue both? I'm asking because you often see the DA file these double charges of murder and manslaughter.

Yes and no. Manslaughter would be a lesser included offense of murder, meaning that all of the elements of manslaughter are also included in murder. I.e. murder consists of A, B, and C; manslaughter consists of A, B and something less than C. So technically when you argue murder you're also arguing manslaughter.

But consider C in the example. It refers to the mental state required for the offense. In murder it's premeditation; in manslaughter it's something less. So you'd want to argue what the possible lesser mental states are. In Zimmerman, they should have talked about imperfect self-defense (an honest but unreasonable belief that you're in danger) as that lesser mental state.

 

[charl_huntress]

Yes and no. Manslaughter would be a lesser included offense of murder, meaning that all of the elements of manslaughter are also included in murder. I.e. murder consists of A, B, and C; manslaughter consists of A, B and something less than C. So technically when you argue murder you're also arguing manslaughter.

But consider C in the example. It refers to the mental state required for the offense. In murder it's premeditation; in manslaughter it's something less. So you'd want to argue what the possible lesser mental states are. In Zimmerman, they should have talked about imperfect self-defense (an honest but unreasonable belief that you're in danger) as that lesser mental state.

Thank you for answering that, Sun_Down. I really appreciate it. I thought the DA would argue that since when Zimmerman made the phone call to police they instructed him not to follow Martin any longer, and let the police handle it. He continued to follow though. I didn't follow the trial extensively, but the approach they took seem odd because I don't even believe that was brought up.

Again, that's why I'm not a fan of SYG outside the home. How do you reconcile someone defending themselves when the cause of the incident was them being an *******? That's the same with the guy who shot the man texting in the theater. I don't know how you can reconcile not including the fact the cause of the incident was them overreacting to someone texting, or playing loud music, which then led to them fearing for lives and shooting someone over it. That's the part that is so perplexing to me.

 

[charl_huntress]

Yes...but after continuing to follow him when told he didn't need to do that is my understanding. Again, I did not follow the trial extensively. It was his continuing to follow, which eventually caused the person being followed to confront him because he was being following him.

Anyhoo, there's a Zimmerman thread for this and I don't even want to talk about that case. It's a tragedy either way.

 

[charl_huntress]

You are hilarious! Welcome to the Hype!

 

[KalMart]

Sounds good to me... t:

I agree with most of that, but for some the home security is a lock. My security system was massively expensive, but I could afford it. I'm not going to put that criteria on someone who might not be able to.

Better locks and windows can be afforded for the price of many guns out there. And again, we're still talking about yet more guns in the hands or within reach of people who are severely il-equipped to use one responsibly in a high-stress situation.

This is why I support SYG in the home. The presumption of fear is much more reasonable. I don't mind a person who has fear inside their home empowering themselves if they feel fear of invasion. By all means.... Arm up! Yet, if you're carrying a gun for personal protection 24/7 the burden for claiming defense has to be incredibly high if there are alternatives to solving the problem. Also the problem itself should be life threatening. My issue with incidents like the one in the OP is how do you rationalize defending yourself if you were being an ******* and put yourself in that situation in the first place.

There are still other ways of 'empowering' themselves within their home that can be effective against intruders but still less dangerous outside of that. You talk about not being able to afford more home security with locks, etc...what about security for the gun? Keeping it from being used by someone else (good gun safes or locks that are still easily accessible aren't free). Not using it in a fit of jealousy or anger, etc. Having a gun for home defense requires just as much care as carrying one concealed, and presents the same dangers...thus, the same responsibility for 'empowering' oneself with it.

 

[KalMart]

Yes and no. Manslaughter would be a lesser included offense of murder, meaning that all of the elements of manslaughter are also included in murder. I.e. murder consists of A, B, and C; manslaughter consists of A, B and something less than C. So technically when you argue murder you're also arguing manslaughter.

But consider C in the example. It refers to the mental state required for the offense. In murder it's premeditation; in manslaughter it's something less. So you'd want to argue what the possible lesser mental states are. In Zimmerman, they should have talked about imperfect self-defense (an honest but unreasonable belief that you're in danger) as that lesser mental state.

And negligently putting oneself in a confrontational situation...one that he should have taken even greater measures to avoid knowing he was armed.

 

[charl_huntress]

Better locks and windows can be afforded for the price of many guns out there. And again, we're still talking about yet more guns in the hands or within reach of people who are severely il-equipped to use one responsibly in a high-stress situation.

There are still other ways of 'empowering' themselves within their home that can be effective against intruders but still less dangerous outside of that. You talk about not being able to afford more home security with locks, etc...what about security for the gun? Keeping it from being used by someone else (good gun safes or locks that are still easily accessible aren't free). Not using it in a fit of jealousy or anger, etc. Having a gun for home defense requires just as much care as carrying one concealed, and presents the same dangers...thus, the same responsibility for 'empowering' oneself with it.

Well...even cops and military personnel who train extensively with firearms struggle during high-stress situations. I don't know if there's any amount of training that's going to fully prepare someone for that sort of stress. Yet, I do understand what you mean. It would be better to limit guns to those who will be responsible and practice good firearm safety. I think that should be the goal of any well formed gun law. The problem with that...being realistic...is most people only talk about these issues when something bad happens, like now, and then it's both sides screaming at the other. I am afraid to support any law that might hinder my right, so I continue to pay the NRA to just fight them all.

Me personally...I feel every gun owner or potential gun owner should a do a thorough self-inventory of why they feel they personally need a gun. You know yourself best, and the burden should be on the gun owner for when to responsibly use that gun. My gun is for home protection. That's it. The only time it leaves the confines of this house is if I'm on my way to the range. I've only ever taken it with me for protection once when I went camping. I was afraid some Deliverance-like **** might pop off, and I wanted to be armed. That whole experience taught me I'm not an outdoorswoman anyway. So that was the last time.

But to get back to what you said, I am okay with someone perhaps not practicing the best firearm safety if they feel their life is threatened when on their property. A man or woman's home is their castle, so I'm not going to hold them to the highest standard in an attempt to defend it. Yet, that doesn't excuse them from practicing proper gun responsibility, which includes a myriad of factors that could help them when it actually came time to use it.

 

[RoughNTumble]

u gotta b careful with machine guns cause they can pop up and u might shoot yourself in the head

 

[Alex_Spider]

The claim is he "politely" told them to turn down the volume and then said he felt threatened. Then saw a phantom shotgun and opened fire, killing one of the teenagers.

lol same ol' story. This excuse is brought up all the time. ''Oh, I told the kid or the young lady to obey my orders and they wouldn't listen so I shot them or kicked the crap out of them, because I saw it in their eyes they were gonna kill me in cold blood''
At least this gentelman asked them ''politely'', before he shot them. It is obvious they were looking for trouble

 

[NickNitro]

I watched some of the trial questions on the news and I must say.....the defense attorney is a funny dude.

Some of the questions to the police officer at the scene regarding not finding a weapon on the kids in the van

"would you say that you could of not searched the entire scene officer?"

"if you were in a car parking lot....and the perp threw the gun under a car...and you did not search under that car, you wouldn't find it correct?"

"if the perp threw that gun in a bush, and you didn't search that bush, you wouldn't be able to find it correct?"

I lol'd

 

[charl_huntress]

I read up on this a bit and watched some of the surveillance video. I couldn't hear the gunshots in the video, but I did watch some footage of witnesses being interviewed, and read some of the shooter's statements about the event.

The one thing that struck me is one witness said the shooter fired twice and then the red vehicle tried to leave. The shooter then continued shooting at the fleeing vehicle.

The shooter says he didn't call the police because he wanted to wait until he got home and around people he knew. Home was another 130 miles away. He claimed he wanted to wait to prevent a "**** storm" from falling on those he knew, and I'm not sure what he means by that; yet, during all this time he was considering calling the police, but didn't. So that to me negates him going into some paralyzed shock where he wasn't thinking clearly because it seems he was trying to rationalize a course of action. He should have called the police. Or if he was worried about his family and his freedom, then he should have called a lawyer.

The article I read also pointed out the shooter had been drinking, and claims to have had 2 drinks at the wedding he just attended. Did he order a pizza and get away from the scene because he was inebriated and wanted to sober up? Did the fact he was inebriated cause him to overreact or imagine a gun?

 

[NickNitro]

this dudes gonna get da chair I thinkzzzzz

 

[KalMart]

I read up on this a bit and watched some of the surveillance video. I couldn't hear the gunshots in the video, but I did watch some footage of witnesses being interviewed, and read some of the shooter's statements about the event.

The one thing that struck me is one witness said the shooter fired twice and then the red vehicle tried to leave. The shooter then continued shooting at the fleeing vehicle.

The shooter says he didn't call the police because he wanted to wait until he got home and around people he knew. Home was another 130 miles away. He claimed he wanted to wait to prevent a "**** storm" from falling on those he knew, and I'm not sure what he means by that; yet, during all this time he was considering calling the police, but didn't. So that to me negates him going into some paralyzed shock where he wasn't thinking clearly because it seems he was trying to rationalize a course of action. He should have called the police. Or if he was worried about his family and his freedom, then he should have called a lawyer.

It qualifies as an extended period of shock...which is also known to happen for even days until someone is faced with things via authorities or what have you. Also supports the idea of him being someone who handles extreme stress very badly..something at can also extend well past moments of high activity. Doesn't necessarily make him a calculating, premeditated hunter/murderer.

The article I read also pointed out the shooter had been drinking, and claims to have had 2 drinks at the wedding he just attended. Did he order a pizza and get away from the scene because he was inebriated and wanted to sober up? Did the fact he was inebriated cause him to overreact or imagine a gun?

Maybe he knew even before the wedding that he wanted to find some teenagers to shoot....and he was just passing the time until he got his opportunity. Then, with his goal attained, he could relax, get something to eat, watch some TV, go for a drive....then maybe somewhere down the road tell the police about it.

 

[charl_huntress]

It qualifies as an extended period of shock...which is also known to happen for even days until someone is faced with things via authorities or what have you. Also supports the idea of him being someone who handles extreme stress very badly..something at can also extend well past moments of high activity. Doesn't necessarily make him a calculating, premeditated hunter/murderer.

Maybe he knew even before the wedding that he wanted to find some teenagers to shoot....and he was just passing the time until he got his opportunity. Then, with his goal attained, he could relax, get something to eat, watch some TV, go for a drive....then maybe somewhere down the road tell the police about it.

I had a friend who got caught up by not calling the police because she was freaked out, so I can believe extended shock and whatnot. Yet, the fact he was making such clear plans about how to handle the situation, and was clearly able to recall them to police later, but missed the most obvious one is beyond me.

No, I don't think this is premeditated. I read they are charging him with 1st degree murder/manslaughter though, which stuck me as odd. That seems...overboard. I don't know all the facts, so maybe it's correct, but I don't think the shooter planned this out with the intent to kill those teens either. It sounds like a combination of events that spiraled into a deadly tragedy.

Another thing I read was this is being handled by the same DA who handled Zimmerman's case. Lots of people think that case was handled poorly, even people who think the verdict was fair... So.....

 

[KalMart]

I had a friend who got caught up by not calling the police because she was freaked out, so I can believe extended shock and whatnot. Yet, the fact he was making such clear plans about how to handle the situation, and was clearly able to recall them to police later, but missed the most obvious one is beyond me.

No, I don't think this is premeditated. I read they are charging him with 1st degree murder/manslaughter though, which stuck me as odd. That seems...overboard. I don't know all the facts, so maybe it's correct, but I don't think the shooter planned this out with the intent to kill those teens either. It sounds like a combination of events that spiraled into a deadly tragedy.

Another thing I read was this is being handled by the same DA who handled Zimmerman's case. Lots of people think that case was handled poorly, even people who think the verdict was fair... So.....

If it really was a 'self-defence of a perceived threat'....it looks to be pretty messed up powers of perception on his part. Again, wrong kind of person to be handling firearms, but you can never tell sometimes until something like that comes up.



"...and so....to the groom, to the bride...you have my blessing, and my wishes for a lifetime of happiness. I'm gonna go find some teenagers to shoot now, so cheers."

 

[charl_huntress]

lol

 

[DarthSkywalker]

That is something that bothers me about laws like this. Many that own guns are the kind of people that perceive danger whenever it is convenient.

You know, like the guy who pulled a gun on a girl scout trying to sell cookies.

 

[charl_huntress]

That is something that bothers me about laws like this. Many that own guns are the kind of people that perceive danger whenever it is convenient.

You know, like the guy who pulled a gun on a girl scout trying to sell cookies.

C'mon...that's a huge generalization of all gun owners. I'm also curious as to what led you to think that.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

C'mon...that's a huge generalization of all gun owners. I'm also curious as to what led you to think that.

I didn't say all. I said many. And I say this because of all the unnecessary and ridiculous deaths I read about by gun every single day. Woman looking for help knocks on door in the middle of the night, dead. Two men checking out their own land, dead. A kid walks home from the gas station at night, dead. Kids listening to music too loudly, dead.

This is a thing.

 

[Hal_Jordan]

I didn't say all. I said many. And I say this because of all the unnecessary and ridiculous deaths I read about by gun every single day. Woman looking for help knocks on door in the middle of the night, dead. Two men checking out their own land, dead. A kid walks home from the gas station at night, dead. Kids listening to music too loudly, dead.

This is a thing.

Stop assuming things based on facts and evidence and real life examples. You're only allowed to assume things about other people based on your imagination of how they might act.

 

[charl_huntress]

I didn't say all. I said many. And I say this because of all the unnecessary and ridiculous deaths I read about by gun every single day. Woman looking for help knocks on door in the middle of the night, dead. Two men checking out their own land, dead. A kid walks home from the gas station at night, dead. Kids listening to music too loudly, dead.

This is a thing.

I think I would have preferred the word "some". t:

But I don't think it's that "many" gun owners perceive danger when it's convenient. I think that people who purchase guns today are already scared. That's why I suggest taking a thorough self-inventory before purchasing. The person needs to ask themselves why they are buying the gun and what reason would they have to use it. Also if a gun is the right form of protection for their given situation. These questions should be revisited for current gun owners.