If this guy isn't charged because of SYG, even I will march in the streets...

[MaggieD]

[h=1]Sheriff says Georgia ‘stand-your-ground’ law may apply to fatal shooting of man suffering Alzheimer’s, report says[/h]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.

All the asshole had to do was stay inside and wait for the coppers. Ridiculous that SYG could result in no charges against this idiot.

Sheriff says Georgia

 

[ecofarm]

Coulda been zombie apoc.

 

[Excon]

All the asshole had to do was stay inside and wait for the coppers. Ridiculous that SYG could result in no charges against this idiot.

Sheriff says Georgia

Wtf?
Stay inside?
He isn't required to stay inside.

 

[Fisher]

Wtf?
Stay inside?
He isn't required to stay inside.

If one is such a vagina that they feel a need to shoot an 80 year old Alzheimer's sufferer, then "oops, my bad" doesn't cut it. Those laws need to modified or abolished.

 

[CalGun]

I'm not sure how you can make such complete assumptions on such little information. It's very possible the old man with dimentia was feeble and not deserving of being shot, but what if he was a 'fit' 260 lbs, 6-4, and was making threatening gestures? I have no clue based on that biased report, and in reject that we as people must surrender our property and " wait" for the bloody govt to protect us..

All the asshole had to do was stay inside and wait for the coppers. Ridiculous that SYG could result in no charges against this idiot.

Sheriff says Georgia

 

[sangha]

Killing a stranger who approaches you by the doorway of your home in the middle of the night is exactly what SYG laws are supposed to allow.

 

[Fisher]

Killing a stranger who approaches you by the doorway of your home in the middle of the night is exactly what SYG laws are supposed to allow.

He rang the damn doorbell. It isn't like the shooter stumbled upon him creeping around. If you value using your gun to kill an ancient man because you can, then you do not deserve to keep your gun, or your freedom.

 

[notquiteright]

I'm not sure how you can make such complete assumptions on such little information. It's very possible the old man with dimentia was feeble and not deserving of being shot, but what if he was a 'fit' 260 lbs, 6-4, and was making threatening gestures? I have no clue based on that biased report, and in reject that we as people must surrender our property and " wait" for the bloody govt to protect us..

Nice CON rant- except the homeowner's property was in no danger, the homeowner PUT himself in 'danger' by going outside to confront a man apparently doing nothing dangerous or damaging anything and failed to recognize there was no threat. :roll:

Now IF the old man was trying to kick in his door, IF the old man was trying to break into a vehicle... well MAYBE the homeowner could fatally shoot an old man.

But in this case the homeowner could have called the cops, waited and watched, and IF the old man suddenly went off on the back door or a vehicle- THEN your 'bloody govt to protect us' has a little bit of merit.

What some CON ranters seem to believe is simple trespass is a capital crime, punishable by death.

 

[ttwtt78640]

All the asshole had to do was stay inside and wait for the coppers. Ridiculous that SYG could result in no charges against this idiot.

Sheriff says Georgia

Note that the 911 response time was 10 minutes. Indeed it is a sad story, yet it remains to be seen if that is a crime. If someone is confronted by an armed person (especially while on thier private property) it is certainly not wise to ignore their requests and continue toward them. No brian, no headache.

 

[Fisher]

Note that the 911 response time was 10 minutes. Indeed it is a sad story, yet it remains to be seen if that is a crime. If someone is confronted by an armed person (especially while on thier private property) it is certainly not wise to ignore their requests and continue toward them. No brian, no headache.

The article does not say that the 80 year old was armed. It is a BS shooting. The deputy who encountered the man earlier in the evening did not feel compelled to shoot him and apparently had a conversation with him. This was some trigger happy yahoo and what he did is indefensible.

 

[Excon]

If one is such a vagina that they feel a need to shoot an 80 year old Alzheimer's sufferer, then "oops, my bad" doesn't cut it. Those laws need to modified or abolished.

Wtf?
What does that have to do with someone saying that a person should stay inside when they clearly have no such requirement?

 

[ecofarm]

*ding-dong*
Hello?
Braaaiiinsss
*pow*

 

[ttwtt78640]

The article does not say that the 80 year old was armed. It is a BS shooting. The deputy who encountered the man earlier in the evening did not feel compelled to shoot him and apparently had a conversation with him. This was some trigger happy yahoo and what he did is indefensible.

I never said the intruder was armed, I said the intruder was confronted by the armed occupant. The not very observant deputy did not ask why the "old man" had removed the mail from someone else's box (a crime?). The fact that a deputy decided to stop and question this guy earlier certainly appears to bolster the feeling of concern by the shooter.

 

[MaggieD]

Wtf?
Stay inside?
He isn't required to stay inside.

The very first thing a guy does when someone rings his damned doorbell at 4 AM in the morning is to rush outside and start giving orders. This is baloney. If this is the result of SYG law interpretation (which, by the way, I think is entirely inappropriate), then they need to be stricken.

 

[MaggieD]

I never said the intruder was armed, I said the intruder was confronted by the armed occupant. The not very observant deputy did not ask why the "old man" had removed the mail from someone else's box (a crime?). The fact that a deputy decided to stop and question this guy earlier certainly appears to bolster the feeling of concern by the shooter.

Ringing someone's doorbell does NOT make someone an intruder. WTF is wrong with people??

 

[MaggieD]

Note that the 911 response time was 10 minutes. Indeed it is a sad story, yet it remains to be seen if that is a crime. If someone is confronted by an armed person (especially while on thier private property) it is certainly not wise to ignore their requests and continue toward them. No brian, no headache.

Do you honestly think that your opinion here does anything at all to protect and reinforce your 2nd Amendment rights? I don't. And that's exactly why people like me are in danger of losing them . . . because of people like you.

 

[Excon]

The very first thing a guy does when someone rings his damned doorbell at 4 AM in the morning is to rush outside and start giving orders. This is baloney. If this is the result of SYG law interpretation (which, by the way, I think is entirely inappropriate), then they need to be stricken.

Rushed?
Wtf?
Sounds like you are exaggerating.
Let me check ...


Yep!
Exaggeration.
:doh

They say Hendrix, who is "saddened and heartbroken," [highlight]walked outside[/highlight] 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.

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.​

No it shouldn't be stricken MaggieD.
It is good law.

Sometimes though sad things happen.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Ringing someone's doorbell does NOT make someone an intruder. WTF is wrong with people??

You seem to be entering into the "logic" used to portray the Zimmerman/Martin shooting as being in response to a black kid skipping home from the convenience store with Skittles and tea. You likely have no idea what happened when the occupant confronted the intruder, other than it ended in a fatal shooting, so assume that it was for simply ringing the doorbell (your "known factoid").

I doubt that these folks called 911 to report a doorbell ring. I also doubt that the deputy just happened to stop and question everyone he saw at/near a mailbox that day. There was obviously something that caused concern about that man's presence that you (or I) can't possibly know from the tiny parts of the story presented in the OP link.

 

[Thom Paine]

Wellllllll,

The lynch mob gathers

Chester speaks in a panic ..."They're in front of the jail Mr Dillon. They have a rope !"
Matt responds calmly ..."I know Chester, they think they know the facts; but they don't."

fer' cryin' out loud folks......

Thom Paine

 

[Beaudreaux]

Wellllllll,

The lynch mob gathers

Chester speaks in a panic ..."They're in front of the jail Mr Dillon. They have a rope !"
Matt responds calmly ..."I know Chester, they think they know the facts; but the don't."

fer' cryin' out loud folks......

Thom Paine

Well said.

Too little information to condemn or justify it.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Do you honestly think that your opinion here does anything at all to protect and reinforce your 2nd Amendment rights? I don't. And that's exactly why people like me are in danger of losing them . . . because of people like you.

That is precisely why we need 2A rights. Folks wish to take them away simply because others have different opinions. Could it be that you like the idea of "the folks" being armed only if they never make a mistake? Any crime committed (or even a questionable shooting) with a gun is now somehow threatening the 2A rights of all? Should we get rid of the military because sometimes a lone soldier goes out on a private revenge rampage? You seem to have convicted this guy before anyone has even charged him with a crime, because you feel that he "abused" his 2A rights.

 

[MaggieD]

That is precisely why we need 2A rights. Folks wish to take them away simply because others have different opinions. Could it be that you like the idea of "the folks" being armed only if they never make a mistake? Any crime committed (or even a questionable shooting) with a gun is now somehow threatening the 2A rights of all? Should we get rid of the military because sometimes a lone soldier goes out on a private revenge rampage? You seem to have convicted this guy before anyone has even charged him with a crime, because you feel that he "abused" his 2A rights.

I think you miss my point. Stand Your Ground is what I'm talking about here. This guy should have to prove self-defense...that he reasonably believed that his life was in danger. Then okay, **** happens. But if a jury finds that he didn't have reason to believe his life was in danger, then he should go to jail. Stand Your Ground interpretations are not a license to kill.

Then the question becomes should a guy be able to put himself in that situation to begin with and then claim self-defense. I'm asking the question. Should he? Should he, after someone rings his doorbell, be able to claim self-defense when he goes out and confronts the guy? So is someone in danger of being shot because they ring someone's doorbell? How reasonable does that sound? Not very reasonable to me.

 

[Fisher]

I think you miss my point. Stand Your Ground is what I'm talking about here. This guy should have to prove self-defense...that he reasonably believed that his life was in danger. Then okay, **** happens. But if a jury finds that he didn't have reason to believe his life was in danger, then he should go to jail. Stand Your Ground interpretations are not a license to kill.

Then the question becomes should a guy be able to put himself in that situation to begin with and then claim self-defense. I'm asking the question. Should he? Should he, after someone rings his doorbell, be able to claim self-defense when he goes out and confronts the guy? So is someone in danger of being shot because they ring someone's doorbell? How reasonable does that sound? Not very reasonable to me.

It was a little more insidious in this case. From another article I read, he went looking for the person who rang his doorbell, saw him "in the shadows", hollered at him, the guy turned around and started walking toward him and then because the guy did not yield to his orders, he shot him.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I think you miss my point. Stand Your Ground is what I'm talking about here. This guy should have to prove self-defense...that he reasonably believed that his life was in danger. Then okay, **** happens. But if a jury finds that he didn't have reason to believe his life was in danger, then he should go to jail. Stand Your Ground interpretations are not a license to kill.

Then the question becomes should a guy be able to put himself in that situation to begin with and then claim self-defense. I'm asking the question. Should he? Should he, after someone rings his doorbell, be able to claim self-defense when he goes out and confronts the guy? So is someone in danger of being shot because they ring someone's doorbell? How reasonable does that sound? Not very reasonable to me.

Yes. SYG laws are needed. You pick one case, with very sketchy details, and say "see it lets people shoot anyone that rings the bell", just as was said of Zimmerman "see it lets you shoot black kids coming home from the store". Texas goes further than that and lets you shoot for property crimes as well.

The SYG idea is that you, the average citizen, do not need to let **** simply happen (or run and hide) until, maybe 10 minutes later, Barney Fife shows up to take charge. Perhaps, due to hysterical media driven pressure, this renter will face bankruptcy for his defense but the law will remain. Do you advocate getting rid of LEOs, or disarming them, if one of them makes a bad call?

 

[CalGun]

You want your life to depend on govt feel free. I will take care of myself.

Nice CON rant- except the homeowner's property was in no danger, the homeowner PUT himself in 'danger' by going outside to confront a man apparently doing nothing dangerous or damaging anything and failed to recognize there was no threat. :roll:

Now IF the old man was trying to kick in his door, IF the old man was trying to break into a vehicle... well MAYBE the homeowner could fatally shoot an old man.

But in this case the homeowner could have called the cops, waited and watched, and IF the old man suddenly went off on the back door or a vehicle- THEN your 'bloody govt to protect us' has a little bit of merit.

What some CON ranters seem to believe is simple trespass is a capital crime, punishable by death.