[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.
Wtf?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.
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
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.
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
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.
Wtf?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.
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.
Wtf?
Stay inside?
He isn't required to stay inside.
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.
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.
Rushed?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.
Ringing someone's doorbell does NOT make someone an intruder. WTF is wrong with people??
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?