Edit – Removed. I’m not going to change anyone’s minds.
Edit – Removed. I’m not going to change anyone’s minds.
Datsun1500 wrote: To me it does not matter if you are for or against guns, the dead guy would be alive if he did not follow the guy home. It's really that simple to me.
To me guns are a distant secondary issue here. The shooter could have tried to bludgeon or stab the guy to death, potentially resulting in serious injury or even death if the dead guy wasn't a good runner. The gun just allowed the shooter to kill easily and quickly at long range.
Attempting to kill someone for no good reason is the primary issue in my opinion. Again the dead guy did many dumb things, certainly, but to say that he simply shouldn't have done that dumb thing to avoid being killed, and to place no blame on the shooter, is simple victim-blaming. Like blaming HiTempGuy for leaving his backpack full of extremely important and valuable stuff in an unlocked car or blaming a rape victim for going to a frat house party and getting super drunk. Same thing. And I vehemently disagree with it.
Fueled by Caffeine wrote:spitfirebill wrote:I'm expecting the castle doctorine to unsolve that problem.Fueled by Caffeine wrote: Forcing the other people out of the car at gun point is what will put this guy in jail. i don't think that's legal. What do the armchair lawyers of grm think?What got the guy put in jail is second degree MURDER.
Maybe it will and maybe it won't. We will see. I'm not sure what they could have charged him with in FL, but, Sanford really screwed the pooch in overcharging Z-man. 2nd degree may be the same as voluntary manslaughter.
Duke wrote:SVreX wrote: In reply to Datsun1500: Actually, he said "My gun's already out, it's cocked and locked". I don't think we know whether it was in the car or the house (although I'm inclined to agree with you).Actually, right after that, he tells the police dispatcher he'll "be home in about 30 seconds". I assumed that meant the gun was in the car with him.
Does saying "my guns out, it's already cocked and locked" make this a case of premeditated murder? Very interesting legal stuff going on with this case..
Given the short time frame, I'd say that's iffy, but it's an interesting question, and I'm sure the prosecution will jump right on it.
I think the shooter certainly gets some of the blame but knowing the world is full of maniacs and idiots I have a responsibility to my family to keep them and myself safe and following someone home over road rage does not do that.
Datsun1500 wrote: Like I said earlier, a guy got killed a few weeks ago when he jumped into a river to chase an alligator. Do you blame him or the alligator? Using your logic, you can't blame him as he's the victim.
I blame the guy who jumped in, however there are many differences.
First the alligator is not a person who should have known better...that's a big one. We can even consider the alligator to be a machine in this situation. It eats meat that gets thrown into its work area. Throwing yourself into the work area of a meat-eating machine is not only extremely stupid, but clearly life-threatening. So the guy who jumped in with the alligator deserves the blame. You're correct that the alligator did not commit a criminal act.
Calling the dead guy here a victim of stupidity is wrong. The person who shot him has been charged with murder-2 for shooting him. He was the victim of a crime. This is different from the alligator situation.
He was shot by a person who should've known better for doing something that was very stupid and rude, but certainly not life-threatening. Following somebody home and approaching them (assuming he didn't charge) has, in itself, no reason to result in death. If it does, either another act was committed which changed the situation, or a crime was committed, which is apparently what the police think happened here.
GameboyRMH wrote:Datsun1500 wrote: To me it does not matter if you are for or against guns, the dead guy would be alive if he did not follow the guy home. It's really that simple to me.To me guns are a distant secondary issue here. The shooter could have tried to bludgeon or stab the guy to death, potentially resulting in serious injury or even death if the dead guy wasn't a good runner. The gun just allowed the shooter to kill easily and quickly at long range. Attempting to kill someone for no good reason is the primary issue in my opinion. Again the dead guy did many dumb things, certainly, but to say that he simply shouldn't have done that dumb thing to avoid being killed, and to place no blame on the shooter, is simple victim-blaming. Like blaming HiTempGuy for leaving his backpack full of extremely important and valuable stuff in an unlocked car or blaming a rape victim for going to a frat house party and getting super drunk. Same thing. And I vehemently disagree with it.
I just can't agree with you … it dumbass (as in got himself killed to prove a point) had gone on about his OWN business he'd still be alive … the shooter didn't pull over on the side of the road and gun the guy down … he drove home .. was followed it what, to him, was a threatening manner, then followed on to his property in, what was to him a threatening manner … and died for his stupidity
I actually do understand your point of view … but I can't agree with letting someone beat my ass at my home, when I can keep it from happening
and YES I do put the blame on the follower …not the shooter
Datsun1500 wrote: ....Take the gun out of it. If the guy just got punched, would you blame the guy that punched him or the guy that ran his mouth?
Question: Does verbal taunting make battery justifiable? Does a believable threat of violence (assault) justify battery?
If not, most might blame the loud mouth, but the puncher is still the one in the wrong legally.
(tangent question): Does stand your ground apply to non-firearms? (e.g fists, knives etc.)
In reply to GameboyRMH:
I really don't see how this is "simple victim-blaming".
The "blaming the victim" argument is predicated on the assumption that the fellow shot is an innocent victim, like someone who left a backpack in their car or a rape victim who got drunk in the wrong place. In this case, the "victim" took aggressive and threatening action-- he chased the shooter (apparently knowing he was armed) to his home, got out of his vehicle and approached the shooter, supposedly in a threatening manner. That's a lot different than passively leaving valuables in an unlocked car or getting drunk in the wrong place.
Maybe the shooter overreacted or did what he did out of anger rather than fear, but that's a nuance it is impossible for us to know at this point. If the "victim" was truly seeking to harm him (and one report has the wife telling him that the shooter deserved a beating), then it's self-defense. In either case, no way is the guy just a hapless victim. That doesn't mean the shooter isn't guilty of doing something wrong, including murder, or that the victim "deserved" to die (which is a silly notion as it presupposes a determinable threshold of deserved death), but he isn't an innocent victim, either.
GameboyRMH wrote:Datsun1500 wrote: Like I said earlier, a guy got killed a few weeks ago when he jumped into a river to chase an alligator. Do you blame him or the alligator? Using your logic, you can't blame him as he's the victim.I blame the guy who jumped in, however there are many differences. First the alligator is not a person who should have known better...that's a big one. We can even consider the alligator to be a machine in this situation. It eats meat that gets thrown into its work area. Throwing yourself into the work area of a meat-eating machine is not only extremely stupid, but clearly life-threatening. So the guy who jumped in with the alligator deserves the blame. You're correct that the alligator did not commit a criminal act. Calling the dead guy here a victim of stupidity is wrong. The person who shot him has been charged with murder-2 for shooting him. He was the victim of a crime. This is different from the alligator situation. He was shot by a person who should've known better for doing something that was very stupid and rude, but certainly not life-threatening. Following somebody home and approaching them (assuming he didn't charge) has, in itself, no reason to result in death. If it does, either another act was committed which changed the situation, or a crime was committed, which is apparently what the police think happened here.
and here is where you loose the argument ( IMO ) … you/we have no way of knowing whether this APPEARED to be a life threatening situation … only the shooter knows this
you can claim this all you want … and I even get it … but you're making up facts to support your argument that just aren't there
wbjones wrote: I just can't agree with you … it dumbass (as in got himself killed to prove a point) had gone on about his OWN business he'd still be alive … the shooter didn't pull over on the side of the road and gun the guy down … he drove home .. was followed it what, to him, was a threatening manner, then followed on to his property in, what was to him a threatening manner … and died for his stupidity I actually do understand your point of view … but I can't agree with letting someone beat my ass at my home, when I can keep it from happening and YES I do put the blame on the follower …not the shooter
Well we'll just have to disagree on that. If I were in the shooter's shoes and I had a gun in my pocket, I'd take the risks involved in giving the guy an opportunity to show that he poses a physical threat before even drawing it - maybe even up to the point of letting him take the first swing.
nope … I'm not giving you the first swing … I've seen way too many one punch fights …some that have resulted in permanent damage … nope … I'm not intentionally giving the first punch, when I can see that it's coming
Fueled by Caffeine wrote:Duke wrote:Does saying "my guns out, it's already cocked and locked" make this a case of premeditated murder? Very interesting legal stuff going on with this case..SVreX wrote: In reply to Datsun1500: Actually, he said "My gun's already out, it's cocked and locked". I don't think we know whether it was in the car or the house (although I'm inclined to agree with you).Actually, right after that, he tells the police dispatcher he'll "be home in about 30 seconds". I assumed that meant the gun was in the car with him.
That is exactly what I was thinking.
In reply to GameboyRMH:
I like you, but you're wrong this time.
He chased him, stalked him to his home, verbally assaulted him, ignored the order of the authority figure (911 "No, no, no"), lied to the authorities ("I'm just going to get his address"), and kept escalating the situation for no reason whatsoever.
He lives in a Stand Your Ground state, and I'm pretty sure most people who live in places like that understand what it means.
He MAY have even been standing on the shooter's private property when shot, and perhaps charging him.
He had plenty of opportunities to show he was not a threat, and failed every single one of them.
There was only 1 person in complete control of the situation from beginning to end. He could have ended it and walked away any time he liked.
Instead, he chose to continue to escalate it. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
I work with guys who make stupid life threatening decisions every day. Sometimes it ends badly.
aircooled wrote:Datsun1500 wrote: ....Take the gun out of it. If the guy just got punched, would you blame the guy that punched him or the guy that ran his mouth?(tangent question): Does stand your ground apply to non-firearms? (e.g fists, knives etc.)
Deadly force, at least in TN, so not limited to firearms.
Datsun1500 wrote: Whatever happened to telling each other to berkeley off then going on your way? It's worked for years, why change it?
I've been called a Bob Costas numerous times for refusing to get out of my car in situations like this. My usual reply is "I'd rather be a Bob Costas than an shiny happy person!" followed by a clutch dump and immediate change of location.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
I've never wanted a tattoo before but I could see getting that misspelled on my neck.
We're all fans of the Darwin Awards and the "Stupid Should Hurt" mantra, are we not?
Well, following a guy home is pretty berkeleying stupid.
Approaching him, on his property, is pretty berkeleying stupider.
Continuing to approach him when he has a gun drawn is about the stupidest berkeleying thing a guy can do. 
RealMiniDriver wrote: Continuing to approach him when he has a gun drawn is about the stupidest berkeleying thing a guy can do.
One witness (the one who's not the shooter's wife) said he was backing away when he was shot.
I like Darwin awards to go to properly deserving recipients, dealt out by things like machinery, animals, gravity...not violent people who are at least as dumb.
Watching the story again, it appears that the guy that was shot was the one that was driving the truck with a trailer. That he was able to follow the shooter to his house, tells me two things. The shooter wasn't trying to get away. And the guy they was shot had to have known that. They were both prepared for a confrontation. One was more prepared than the other.
Seems very similar to another FL case that grabbed headlines....Zimmerman.
Both stories read like this:
Person A - may or may not have been a douche
Person B - was like "hey man, you're a douche"
Person B - calls 911, says guy is being a douche
911 - Dont follow person A
Person B - Follows person A
Person B confronts person A
The difference is in one story person B shoots person A, claims self defense, the other person A shoots person B, claims self defense. Hard to get both sides of the story when one dude is 6 feet under.
Both times lives were lost because they disregarded what 911 had to say.
One thing I have picked up on this story is both seemed to be trying to set up the other as the bad guy. Too bad neither one listened to the 911 dispatcher.
If somone tries to run me off the road, follows me home (I'm not so stupid as to go home), gets out and walks onto my property cursing and threatening me, it probably isn't going to end so well either.
You'll need to log in to post.
