• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Florida man ambushed rivals at barbecue killing 2

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
66,511
Reaction score
37,761
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
What does this have to do with gun control? Are you saying that shooting someone 11 times, yet failing to kill them, is poor gun control?
 

TiredOfLife

Banned
Joined
Jul 31, 2013
Messages
2,817
Reaction score
582
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
What does this have to do with gun control? Are you saying that shooting someone 11 times, yet failing to kill them, is poor gun control?
I'm not saying it but the guy who made the gun sure would.
 

tech30528

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
5,243
Reaction score
3,013
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
It will never pass the courts. You can't claim preemptive action and a defensive stand your ground at the time.
 

ecofarm

global liberation
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Messages
117,832
Reaction score
33,964
Location
Miami
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm sure his "Bush Doctrine" defense will go well. haha
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
66,511
Reaction score
37,761
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It will never pass the courts. You can't claim preemptive action and a defensive stand your ground at the time.
Sure you can, as this case's defense stragegy proves. The only question is if it will it actually work. SYG, as its basis, requires only that you believe that you are in danger of death or great bodily harm, not when that belief was established.

The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Beard v. U.S.[5] (158 U.S. 550 (1895)) that a man who was "on his premises" when he came under attack and "...did not provoke the assault, and had at the time reasonable grounds to believe, and in good faith believed, that the deceased intended to take his life, or do him great bodily harm...was not obliged to retreat, nor to consider whether he could safely retreat, but was entitled to stand his ground.
 

rcart76

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
1,321
Reaction score
649
Location
Dallas, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
It will never pass the courts. You can't claim preemptive action and a defensive stand your ground at the time.
You right it shouldn't pass the courts (At least I don't think it will). But that is not my concern. The problem is that sick people are more comfortable to shoot someone because of the presumption that they can hide behind the stand your ground law. The definition of feeling threaten is pretty broad in the law.

We haven't seen the worst of it yet just watch.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
66,511
Reaction score
37,761
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
You right it shouldn't pass the courts (At least I don't think it will). But that is not my concern. The problem is that sick people are more comfortable to shoot someone because of the presumption that they can hide behind the stand your ground law. The definition of feeling threaten is pretty broad in the law.

We haven't seen the worst of it yet just watch.
That is exactly what the defense is claiming. Based on repeated threats they contend that constitutes an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm to Woodward. I would argue that SYG does not apply because Woodward did not stand his ground but actually initiated the attack. Had Woodward been approached by the three men, rather than did the persuing, then it would be a different situation entirely.

http://www.floridatoday.com/article...le-slaying-suspect-claims-he-stood-his-ground
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
23,373
Reaction score
8,532
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
"[imminent threats include] things that could become ... an immediate threat,"

If people hadn't lost their lives, this'd be much funnier.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
23,373
Reaction score
8,532
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Sure you can, as this case's defense stragegy proves. The only question is if it will it actually work. SYG, as its basis, requires only that you believe that you are in danger of death or great bodily harm, not when that belief was established.
It requires a "reasonable" belief "that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm..."
So, the belief must not only be reasonable, but the injury/death must be imminent.

The word "imminent" establishes a time frame for what must be reasonably feared.
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
66,511
Reaction score
37,761
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It requires a "reasonable" belief "that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm..."
So, the belief must not only be reasonable, but the injury/death must be imminent.

The word "imminent" establishes a time frame for what must be reasonably feared.
If I am told that if I get within reach of these three morons that I will be beaten severely, and then present myself, must that threat be repeated, or simply documented to have existed?
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
23,373
Reaction score
8,532
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
If I am told that if I get within reach of these three morons that I will be beaten severely, and then present myself, must that threat be repeated, or simply documented to have existed?
I suspect that would go toward the question of wether or not the fear was "reasonable".
 

ttwtt78640

Sometimes wrong
DP Veteran
Joined
May 22, 2012
Messages
66,511
Reaction score
37,761
Location
Uhland, Texas
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I suspect that would go toward the question of wether or not the fear was "reasonable".
I see, so one would have to bring up examples of these morons actually having made good on such a threat? What if you had been bullied, threatened and beaten before, just not by these particular individuals? What if you are presented with a situation, say that of a typical mugging, in which you have no idea of what the threat level is; in other words, you never met or heard of the perp before that very instant?
 

opendebate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2013
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
2,926
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Holy nutjobs batman!! WTF is wrong with people?! The SYG laws are so dangerous. The problem with them is that while they may work for reasonable people, it also gives the same power to the many that are not reasonable. To let a citizen decide for themselves when someone is enough of a threat to kill them...seriously!! There is far too much prejudice and paranoia out there for that. This law has been applied and has been successful in similar scenarios in the past yet unsuccessful in others where the threat appeared more imminent and immediate, ether the law as to be revised or get rid of it.
 

Goshin

The Hammer of Chaos
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,508
Reaction score
50,075
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
That is exactly what the defense is claiming. Based on repeated threats they contend that constitutes an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm to Woodward. I would argue that SYG does not apply because Woodward did not stand his ground but actually initiated the attack. Had Woodward been approached by the three men, rather than did the persuing, then it would be a different situation entirely.

http://www.floridatoday.com/article...le-slaying-suspect-claims-he-stood-his-ground


You nailed it. Imminent threat does not mean someone making a verbal threat they're gonna kill you later... it means someone is trying to kill you right now.

And generally speaking, even in Florida, if you go out of your way to initiate an attack you've already blown your SYG defense.
 

Goshin

The Hammer of Chaos
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,508
Reaction score
50,075
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Holy nutjobs batman!! WTF is wrong with people?! The SYG laws are so dangerous. The problem with them is that while they may work for reasonable people, it also gives the same power to the many that are not reasonable. To let a citizen decide for themselves when someone is enough of a threat to kill them...seriously!! There is far too much prejudice and paranoia out there for that. This law has been applied and has been successful in similar scenarios in the past yet unsuccessful in others where the threat appeared more imminent and immediate, ether the law as to be revised or get rid of it.

Nothing wrong with most SYG laws. In most states they simply remove the duty to retreat before using lethal force and that is well... lotta times retreat isn't feasible.


Florida's law is more extreme than most, giving much more latitude... but even under Florida's SYG I cannot see this defense being successful. Basically the guy is a looney and a dick and he's trying to cover his murderous actions with whatever tattered ragged cloak of law he can... but it isn't going to work.
 

Simon W. Moon

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 20, 2005
Messages
23,373
Reaction score
8,532
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I see, so one would have to bring up examples of these morons actually having made good on such a threat? What if you had been bullied, threatened and beaten before, just not by these particular individuals? What if you are presented with a situation, say that of a typical mugging, in which you have no idea of what the threat level is; in other words, you never met or heard of the perp before that very instant?
IIRC, the jury is who determines "reasonableness"
 

opendebate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2013
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
2,926
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Nothing wrong with most SYG laws.


Florida's law is more extreme than most, giving much more latitude... but even under Florida's SYG I cannot see this defense being successful. Basically the guy is a looney and a dick and he's trying to cover his murderous actions with whatever tattered ragged cloak of law he can... but it isn't going to work.
In most states they simply remove the duty to retreat before using lethal force and that is well... lotta times retreat isn't feasible.
The duty to retreat thing is definitely questionable. I know I would not do it if I felt someone was threatening me or my kids. But, it is my understanding, there have been several instances in Florida where the SYG law was successfully used when the shooter tracked down the victim. Anywhere the law can be twisted to successfully defend someone under these circumstances seems to be inviting more trouble that stopping it.
 

CRUE CAB

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
16,763
Reaction score
4,343
Location
Melbourne Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Holy nutjobs batman!! WTF is wrong with people?! The SYG laws are so dangerous. The problem with them is that while they may work for reasonable people, it also gives the same power to the many that are not reasonable. To let a citizen decide for themselves when someone is enough of a threat to kill them...seriously!! There is far too much prejudice and paranoia out there for that. This law has been applied and has been successful in similar scenarios in the past yet unsuccessful in others where the threat appeared more imminent and immediate, ether the law as to be revised or get rid of it.
Yes, my god how can a normal citizen decide his life is in danger? They should just stand there and die themselves? Right?
 

opendebate

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 25, 2013
Messages
7,317
Reaction score
2,926
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Progressive
Yes, my god how can a normal citizen decide his life is in danger? They should just stand there and die themselves? Right?
Yes, they should. That is exactly what I said. Seriously, I don't engage here with people who twist my words into something completely different for their amusement or to create an opportunity to exercise their rage.
 

tech30528

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
5,243
Reaction score
3,013
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
You right it shouldn't pass the courts (At least I don't think it will). But that is not my concern. The problem is that sick people are more comfortable to shoot someone because of the presumption that they can hide behind the stand your ground law. The definition of feeling threaten is pretty broad in the law.

We haven't seen the worst of it yet just watch.
Then this will be a great opportunity for the court to define exactly where that line is.
 

CRUE CAB

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 21, 2013
Messages
16,763
Reaction score
4,343
Location
Melbourne Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Yes, they should. That is exactly what I said. Seriously, I don't engage here with people who twist my words into something completely different for their amusement or to create an opportunity to exercise their rage.
Oh, I didn't know making a comment was "rage". Gee, little touchy?
 
Top Bottom