Florida man ambushed rivals at barbecue killing 2

[rcart76]

What the hell is wrong with people in Florida !!!!

Florida man who ambushed rivals at barbecue, killing 2, seeks to evade murder charges under

 

[TiredOfLife]

What the hell is wrong with people in Florida !!!!

Florida man who ambushed rivals at barbecue, killing 2, seeks to evade murder charges under

Nuts, Guns, Beer, and now people are dead? How could such a thing have happened...

 

[ttwtt78640]

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]

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]

It will never pass the courts. You can't claim preemptive action and a defensive stand your ground at the time.

 

[ecofarm]

I'm sure his "Bush Doctrine" defense will go well. haha

 

[ttwtt78640]

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]

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.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Titusville, what can I say.

 

[ttwtt78640]

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]

"[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]

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]

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?

 

[MaggieD]

What the hell is wrong with people in Florida !!!!

Florida man who ambushed rivals at barbecue, killing 2, seeks to evade murder charges under

Lawyers will do anything for publicity. He'll be convicted just like all the rest who use SYG in ridiculous ways.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

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]

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]

What the hell is wrong with people in Florida !!!!

Florida man who ambushed rivals at barbecue, killing 2, seeks to evade murder charges under

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?