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

[Jerry]

We'll never know what happened, not because I saw a video, but because we only have the homeowner's side of the story...that the man kept coming towards him. That's what I meant. As to bravado, I think being armed gives one more courage than if one was not armed. That just seems logical to me.

More courage, certainly, but how did you make the leap from courage to bravado? Maybe you don't know what bravado means.

 

[Bodi]

The guy who pulled the trigger is not responsible for the results of his decision to pull the trigger. He gets to blame someone else for his sorry situation?

Are the victim's relatives also responsible for Hendrix's decision to arm himself and unnecessarily escalate a potentially dangerous situation?

Exactly... any time you pull out a gun in a situation that escalates it into a dangerous situation. Some people are literally unable to understand this simplicity.

 

[Bodi]

More courage, certainly, but how did you make the leap from courage to bravado? Maybe you don't know what bravado means.

Lots of guys that pull a gun exhibit bravado... Hell, people on this thread are exhibiting bravado.

 

[Bodi]

I absolutely see the tragedy of this. Very tragic. A tragedy for both those men. But who REALLY made the tragedy possible? The man who didn't follow Maggie's law of "never go outside?" and instead everyone should call the police 10 times a month?

Histrionics ... :lol:

 

[Jerry]

Well, if we're going to take general to mean specific, I s'pose you have a fair point.

Location is general. When your thread-drift changes the kind of location, you have moved the goal posts.

SYG does not apply to one's own home.

 

[joko104]

The guy who pulled the trigger is not responsible for the results of his decision to pull the trigger. He gets to blame someone else for his sorry situation?

Are the victim's relatives also responsible for Hendrix's decision to arm himself and unnecessarily escalate a potentially dangerous situation?

You point out the flaw in your message, don't you? "A potentially dangerous situation." So you admit that. Then you have the absurd view that in a "potentially dangerous situation" the person should disarm him/herself? A ludicrous view.

Yes, I place ALL the blame on those people who should have prevented a known Alzheimers patient from being able to wander off at night. And if he had wandered into someone's yard and bitten by the dog you'd blame the dog owner. If hit by a car you'd blame the driver...

We keep writing it nicely, but what appears to have happened is a crazy man came charging at someone out of the dark refusing to stop. There is no "don't go outside" law nor should there be, and when a person should most be armed is in "potentially dangerous situations."

I do NOT blame the old guy. He had Alzheimers. I do not blame the shooter if his story is true. I blame those people who KNEW he could and likely would wander off, KNEW his condition, and apparently didn't prevent it, when not doing so is gross negligence and reckless endangerment on their part. If they COULDN'T or WON'T take care of him, then they should had social services take custody of him.

If he stayed with a younger relative, that relative should be prosecuted as that is the message to send out.

 

[lawboy]

SYG does not apply to one's own home.

What do you mean?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Exactly... any time you pull out a gun in a situation that escalates it into a dangerous situation. Some people are literally unable to understand this simplicity.

Hendrix also increased his exposure to risk by exiting the building. It's a perfectly legal decision to exit your house. But, "legal" is not a synonym for "w/o consequences".
Knowing that an unknown person was wandering around outside, a person whom Hendrix decided was potentially dangerous enough to call the police about, Hendrix decided to arm himself and increase his own exposure to danger.
We're not talking about a duty to retreat. Hendrix started off in the retreat position. He left the relative safety of his house in favor of actions which increased the likelihood of a violent outcome. Hendrix was not forced from the frying pan into the fire. He chose that of his own accord.

 

[Bodi]

Hendrix also increased his exposure to risk by exiting the building. It's a perfectly legal decision to exit your house. But, "legal" is not a synonym for "w/o consequences".
Knowing that an unknown person was wandering around outside, a person whom Hendrix decided was potentially dangerous enough to call the police about, Hendrix decided to arm himself and increase his own exposure to danger.
We're not talking about a duty to retreat. Hendrix started off in the retreat position. He left the relative safety of his house in favor of actions which increased the likelihood of a violent outcome. Hendrix was not forced from the frying pan into the fire. He chose that of his own accord.

I absolutely agree... those arguing that he has a right to leave his house, that it was all the other guy escalating the danger, etc. completely miss this point.

 

[Bodi]

What do you mean?

That it applies wherever you are... Castle Doctrine applies to your home.

 

[joko104]

Exactly... any time you pull out a gun in a situation that escalates it into a dangerous situation. Some people are literally unable to understand this simplicity.

That is 100% absolutely opposite the truth. I grew tired of posting the Justice Department claim that 1,000,000 non-drug felonies and 500,000 violent crimes PER YEAR are PREVENTED because of the presence of a firearm. Except for crazy people as that old man was or people determined to do violence, pulling a gun instantly stops crime and assault from happening.

If someone is going to assault, rob or kill you, you REALLY are claiming if you "pull a gun" on him you have "escalated the situation?" That's ridiculous.

The problem in this particular incident, the tragedy, is that the old guy was crazy and allowed to wander around at night. Maybe the relatives were tired of him and hoped he wandered off and got hit by a car. Then they get his estate as an inheritance. If not, it clear they certainly didn't give a damn. Hell, for all we know they threw him out of the house because he was raging - like Alzheimers patients can do.

 

[ric27]

Hendrix also increased his exposure to risk by exiting the building. It's a perfectly legal decision to exit your house. But, "legal" is not a synonym for "w/o consequences".
Knowing that an unknown person was wandering around outside, a person whom Hendrix decided was potentially dangerous enough to call the police about, Hendrix decided to arm himself and increase his own exposure to danger.
We're not talking about a duty to retreat. Hendrix started off in the retreat position. He left the relative safety of his house in favor of actions which increased the likelihood of a violent outcome. Hendrix was not forced from the frying pan into the fire. He chose that of his own accord.

Hmmm.....

So, what would you consider *charging* him with?

 

[Jerry]

What do you mean?

I don't know what you're asking.

 

[lawboy]

I don't know what you're asking.

It was clarified, thanks.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

You point out the flaw in your message, don't you? "A potentially dangerous situation." So you admit that. Then you have the absurd view that in a "potentially dangerous situation" the person should disarm him/herself? A ludicrous view.

Again, and still, I have not said these thing you keep thinking I am saying. I do not know how you reached the conclusions you have. They're not supported by the text.

And if he had wandered into someone's yard and bitten by the dog you'd blame the dog owner. If hit by a car you'd blame the driver...

This is more from you. I have noty said or supported these things.

Straw is cheap where you are?

We keep writing it nicely, but what appears to have happened is a crazy man came charging at someone out of the dark refusing to stop.

Possibly. I hadn't yet noticed the verb "charging" outside of this forum.

There is no "don't go outside" law nor should there be

I think that yo are right on both of these counts. Not at all clear how you came to think that I disagree with these. :shrug:

...and when a person should most be armed is in "potentially dangerous situations."

Whether one is armed or not, how should one act in dangerous situations? To increase the danger and likelihood of injury/death? or to decrease the danger and likelihood of injury/death?
Did exiting the house increase or decrease Hendrix's exposure to risk?

 

[Jerry]

I absolutely agree... those arguing that he has a right to leave his house, that it was all the other guy escalating the danger, etc. completely miss this point.

If you could just state your point instead of dancing around "he could have stayed inside" it would help. If you aren't critisizing the guy for going outside then I truly have no idea what your point is.

 

[Bodi]

If you could just state your point instead of dancing around "he could have stayed inside" it would help. If you aren't critisizing the guy for going outside then I truly have no idea what your point is.

I haven't danced around anything. I criticise the shooter for making a bad decision and going outside and escalating the situation that lead to the victim's death.

 

[Jerry]

Did exiting the house increase or decrease Hendrix's exposure to risk?

It increased risk. What's your point?

I build high voltage powerline for a living. This increases my risk. What's your point?

I'm volinteering to redeploy to Afghanistan. This increases my risk. What's your point?

 

[Simon W. Moon]

Hmmm.....
So, what would you consider *charging* him with?

Idk the relevant laws well enough to say much. Not even sure if it warrants being a crime. But it's definitely an ethical issue and an issue of personal responsibility. When you carry a firearm, you are silently declaring that you are willing to accept the consequences of your actions and judgment in re the use of that weapon. If you do stupid ****, you should expect unfortunate consequences.

Negligence/recklessness is a civil thing I think. idk. ianal.

 

[MaggieD]

THIS IS WHO IS TO BLAME AND THE CAUSE OF THAT MAN'S DEATH

IF that old fella with Alzheimers lived with a younger relative, and depending what an investigation demonstrated, who most likely should be prosecuted is that younger relative - for "abuse of the elderly" and "reckless endangerment."

Since it is Maggie furious over the shooting and using her mother as example, this is the question to her? What have you done, Maggie? Have you:

1. Put loud buzzers on all doors?
2. Put interior locks that are keyed or push button to prevent exit?
3. Installed a cellular reporting smoke alarm in case of a fire and power out?
4. Spoken to all our neighbors door to door of the situation?
5. Hired a company to install interior cameras you can monitor via your smart phone?
6. Occasionally hire someone qualified to watch her so you can get away for extended times to prevent you're becoming frustrated?
7. Have your cell phone number posted on your door in the event of emergency and you're not there?
8. Have her wearing an "overboard" alarm (sounds an alarm if a person becomes too far from the receiver - what a person wears is very small).

UNLESS you've done those things, you have no business worrying about what your neighbors might do if she startles them in the middle of then night startling them out of the dark.

She's your mother, not theirs. You know the situation. They don't. You can prevent her from wandering off. They can't. So why is her wandering off THEIR responsibility - and risk? And if you have done YOUR duty, then the question will never arise, will it?

If someone shoots a big strange dog coming at them in the dark, the owner of that dog has no business bitching "But the dog was 11 years old and blind in both eyes!" The person should have kept their big dog on lease or fenced.

If a person has a relative with dementia, that relative should insure that person can't go wandering off. The FAULT lies with those people who had a duty to prevent this from happening - and didn't. Now they'll probably sue, claiming they should be paid a huge sum of money as a reward for THEIR dereliction that is REALLY what got him killed. THEY are who should be prosecuted.

It is not the fault of the man that the old fella has Alzheimers. Not his fault the guy was 72. Not his fault the old guy came at him in his yard out of the dark ignoring command to stop. Not his fault that old fella with Alzheimers was out wandering around in the middle of the night. Whose fault it is, if anyone's fault, are those people should have made it so this scenario could never have happened in the first place.

Maggie, if your mother who I gather stays with you wanders off in the middle of the night and something happens to her, whose fault that will be is yours. You have taken charge of her life. So she is YOUR responsibility. If you fail at it, it's not other people's fault. You can afford to do what you need to. You have both the time and money to do so. Have you done so for her safety? If so, the danger you fear is eliminated.

The man who shot him, not in a million years, wanted to shoot old fella with Alzheimers. That was suddenly thrust upon him by the dereliction and apathy of his relatives. THEY are who caused this to happen. People always try to find anyone else to blame for their own failures and misdeeds.

Yes, it was a terrible tragedy. For that old fella. For the guy who shot him too. But someone else is responsible for this - those who could have and had a duty to prevent this ever happening in the first place.

Bad Joko. Bad.

Here's what I've done: Mom wears a Life Alert that recognizes a fall in case she would be unable to push the alarm she wears around her neck. She is very unstable and cannot walk without a walker -- and without me being next to or behind her as she does so. But she's senile -- sometimes more than others -- and she forgets that she isn't capable of safely getting up. She has bed rails on her bed so she theoretically can't get out of bed in the middle of the night. Her walker is put way far out of her reach. But even that "theoretical" isn't good enough. The first night the bed rails were up, she called me in a panic at 2 AM. When I went into her room, she had one leg thrown over the bed rail and the other wedged underneath it. "What's this darned thing and why can't I get out of bed?" Shall I tie her in?

As for personal care, she is rarely left alone and when she is? It's for an hour or so. In her transport chair, walker out of reach. Shall I tie her in the chair? What if there's a fire? Can someone always be home with her? No, not without a 24-hour caregiver. There are times when knowing ahead of time one needs to leave isn't an option. When we are gone for longer than an hour-and-a-half or so, I have a care giving service that sends people. The cost is $24 an hour. Not bad at all. And mom, who saved all her life for that rainy day accepts whole-heartedly that it's pouring outside.

In mom's more cognizant moments, I've discussed the risks she faces with her . . . told her I'm doing the best I can, but I can't cover every contingency. And that bad things might happen. In fact, just a few weeks ago, she scooted too close to the edge of the bed when I was helping her up and ended up in the hospital. Right now, I'm dressing the deep wound twice a day caused by a terrible bruise when she hit her walker (as I eased her to the floor). She has a visiting nurse 2X a week and has big-time skin grafts in her future. OMG, what a nightmare.

Do I have every contingency covered? No. But I've covered as many as I can. As to the camera, frankly, I actually want to install one in the living room for when she has a care giver, but haven't gotten it done yet. I thought I could get shirt-tail family to do it, but he can't. I'd already thought of the Smartphone access which is one of the reasons I bought one two weeks ago.

The only reason I'm telling you this is to say that, really? You're right. The ultimate fault does indeed lie with the caregiver of a known Alzheimer's patient. If someone put a loved one in a nursing home and found that the person had gotten out and taken a tour of the neighborhood, the fur would fly. As would the lawsuit.

Having said that, though, does not mean that what ended up happening shouldn't cause us to look at what constitutes self-defense and whether or not deadly force is acceptable outside someone's 'castle.' Seems to me that if one wanted to pick off a few gang bangers occasionally, one would only need go walking heavily armed in a bad neighborhood. Kind of a Charles Bronson approach.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

It increased risk. What's your point?

Hendrix chose to increase the chances of an unfortunate outcome. Hendrix is responsible for his choices.

 

[lawboy]

Negligence/recklessness is a civil thing I think. idk. ianal.

That can also be criminal in nature, as In Ohio, we have RECKLESS Homicide, and NEGLIGENT Homicide. Don't know about GA's Code.

 

[Simon W. Moon]

I build high voltage powerline for a living. This increases my risk. What's your point?
I'm volinteering to redeploy to Afghanistan. This increases my risk. What's your point?

that you are responsible for your decisions.

 

[Bodi]

That is 100% absolutely opposite the truth. I grew tired of posting the Justice Department claim that 1,000,000 non-drug felonies and 500,000 violent crimes PER YEAR are PREVENTED because of the presence of a firearm. Except for crazy people as that old man was or people determined to do violence, pulling a gun instantly stops crime and assault from happening.

If someone is going to assault, rob or kill you, you REALLY are claiming if you "pull a gun" on him you have "escalated the situation?" That's ridiculous.

The problem in this particular incident, the tragedy, is that the old guy was crazy and allowed to wander around at night. Maybe the relatives were tired of him and hoped he wandered off and got hit by a car. Then they get his estate as an inheritance. If not, it clear they certainly didn't give a damn. Hell, for all we know they threw him out of the house because he was raging - like Alzheimers patients can do.

Dude, you don't have to be a dick. You are normally more reasonable.

So.. 100% opposite the truth? Is that a clever way of saying that I am lying? :lol:

Pulling out a gun in a situation DOES NOT escalate that situation into a dangerous situation. Is that what you are trying to tell me?

If someone is going to assault, rob or kill you, you REALLY are claiming if you "pull a gun" on him you have "escalated the situation?" That's ridiculous.

The old guy did not try to assault, rob or kill the home owner. The home owner pulled a gun and escalated the situation. Just a Fact.

 

[ric27]

Exactly... any time you pull out a gun in a situation that escalates it into a dangerous situation. Some people are literally unable to understand this simplicity.

Ok, some punk ass caveman asshole catches you in *Condition White* and bitch slaps you, rapes your woman, and takes your bacon.

Would you

1 Smile

2 Make breakfast and smile or

3 Escalate it into a dangerous situation