• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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!

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

My daughter being assaulted and leaving all laws exactly as they are are the only two possible choices? Is a third option even remotely possible?
 
Simon W. Moon said:
My daughter being assaulted and leaving all laws exactly as they are are the only two possible choices? Is a third option even remotely possible?
Click to expand...

Well SYG is for self defense. You either A) want her to be able to defend herself, survive, and not face legal repercussions or B) Be prepared to put your house up for her legal defense fund, and her years of being torn down by the D.A.

It really is a read between the lines issue. There isn't much wiggle room. You either are looking at jail/huge monetary loss, or you're able to go home to your family. This is what SYG was truly designed to protect, the law abiding citizen. Do accidents happen? Sure, but the benefits outweigh the risks 10 fold.
 


Then, accordingly, if a person is not carrying a firearm that person is :silently willing to accept the consequence of your actions and judgment" too, right?

So, if someone is a victim of a crime they could have prevented if having displayed or used a firearm, you'd tell them to just accept the consequences of her/his actions and judgment? That'd certainly clear about 99% of all criminal cases off all dockets. Have the victims bear the consequences of his/her judgment.
 

That's exactly the question, isn't it? All the sobbing and lamenting over this one tragic incident, while not giving a damn about the thousands upon thousands of victims from just then until now. NOR willingness to even consider someone had a duty to keep a crazy old man from wandering around at night either. BLAME THE GUN!!!!!

You'll see that all the time on this forum. People watching for ANY POSSIBLE incident to find to declare people have TOO MANY rights of self defense. NOTHING promoting increasing self defense options. This despite the millions and millions of people who have been and will become victims of major and violent crime.
 
Last edited:
Simon W. Moon said:
My daughter being assaulted and leaving all laws exactly as they are are the only two possible choices? Is a third option even remotely possible?
Click to expand...

What 3rd option?

GOING OUTSIDE is totally irrelevant as there would be the same question if he was already outside.
 
joko104 said:
Then, accordingly, if a person is not carrying a firearm that person is :silently willing to accept the consequence of your actions and judgment" too, right?
Click to expand...
Uh..maybe. Not sure what you have said.
If someone chooses a course of action, w/e that course of action may be, they are accepting the consequences of choosing that course of action. You can substitute "carrying a firearm" or "not carrying a firearm" as it pleases you.
joko104 said:
So, if someone is a victim of a crime they could have prevented if having displayed or used a firearm, you'd tell them to just accept the consequences of her/his actions and judgment?
Click to expand...
Why wouldn't they be obligated to accept the consequences of their actions?
In what world are not we not bound by our choices?
joko104 said:
That'd certainly clear about 99% of all criminal cases off all dockets. Have the victims bear the consequences of his/her judgment.
Click to expand...
Now, see here is where you have jumped off the tracks. Accepting responsibility for your own actions does not mean the same thing as accepting responsibility for someone else's actions. If person A chooses to rob person B, person A is still responsible for person A's choices no matter what choices person B has made. You make the case that person B is responsible for the outcomes of choosing not to carry a firearm. And this is true. But person B's responsibility for for person B's actions in no way removes person A's responsibility for person A's actions.
Not sure how that is leading you to think that accepting personal responsibility for your own action would lead to dropping criminal charges against someone. Quite the opposite afaict.

I honestly don't understand how you decided that accepting responsibility for one's own actions means that one is not responsible for one's own actions. Color me clueless on that one.
 
Excon said:
:lamo
No you are not.


More meaningless drivel. No one said it did.
Click to expand...
Every one that thinks, that on first blush, its ok to kill someone for ringing the doorbell or being on their property.
And yes I am. Just because I believe in engaging brain before engaging targets dont mean I am not a 2A supporter.
 
joko104 said:
What 3rd option?
Click to expand...
Adjusting laws, but not adjusting the laws in such a way that women are not required to submit to rape. :shrug:
Doesn't seem like an obscure option.
 
CRUE CAB said:
Every one that thinks, that on first blush, its ok to kill someone for ringing the doorbell or being on their property.
And yes I am. Just because I believe in engaging brain before engaging targets dont mean I am not a 2A supporter.
Click to expand...

Sometimes I think I'm in the Twilight Zone on DP where guns and gun rights are concerned. Personally? I don't agree that a homeowner should be able to use deadly force to stop someone from stealing their car. I just don't. Those states that have extended Castle Laws to anywhere on one's property or, worse yet, anywhere in the world, are making a mistake, in my opinion. A gun license shouldn't be viewed as a license to kill. And that's what I see happening.

I completely agree with SYG re the Castle Law. That makes absolute perfect sense to me. You're in my house because you broke in? I can shoot you. I cannot be sued civilly. Period. End of story. But in my driveway? In my backyard? In the Convenience Store parking lot? You'd better be able to show the same thing a cop has to show . . . shooting was your only option.
 
Simon W. Moon said:
Adjusting laws, but not adjusting the laws in such a way that women are not required to submit to rape. :shrug:
Doesn't seem like an obscure option.
Click to expand...



There is nothing wrong with the law. This case will hinge on whether Hendrix' perception of the unknown man coming at him in the dark (all he knew at the time) as a threat, was or was not reasonable under GA's self-defense laws and precedents. A jury will make the final call on that, if the DA thinks he can prosecute successfully.


That's as it should be. Nobody has 'gotten off' yet, and the DA may have details we do not.
 

I have sons, and I would tell them not to defend idiots if they want to keep their privilege of gun ownership.
 


There is NO 'license to kill'.

The cop does NOT have to show that shooting was his ONLY option... just that it was within the bounds of the law.


The law in GA is probably no different than SC law on these points: There must be specific signs of imminent threat of grave bodily harm or death before you can shoot, that a "REASONABLE man" would agree was such a threat. The standard is admittedly a bit subjective; this is why we have juries.
 

Just FYI, Goshin, as far as I'm concerned, you are the only guy taking a, what should I call it? A middlin' approach in this thread. I read no bravado in your opinion; just horse sense. Now, whether your horse sense and mine are in agreement? That's immaterial.
 


I'm mainly just trying to get people to see both sides of the story, and to enlighten a bit about the law and what it requires.

I agree it is very tragic what happened, and I wish it hadn't, and there were many different points at which the tragedy could have been averted:
1. If the old man's caregivers had been a bit more diligent, or lucky.
2. If the first cop to encounter this man had been a little more diligent in figuring out he needed to be monitored or returned home.
3. If Hendrix hadn't gone outside, or had used a flashlight.
4. If the old man had been able to respond verbally at the time, or had not gone towards Hendrix out of the dark.
5. If Hendrix had been a little slower on the trigger..


But I see Hendrix side as well. Someone rang his doorbell at 4AM, then wasn't there at the door... that's suspicious. Then he sees someone in his dark yard messing around his house... also suspicious, guaranteed to put most people into a worried state of mind. Ignoring verbal questioning and commands to stop, coming at you out of the dark... that would scare almost anyone.

I understand why he shot. I can potentially put myself in his place, and while I HOPE I would not have fired I don't KNOW that I would not have... I don't have ESP or superpowers that allow me to identify a dark silhouette coming at me as an mostly-harmless senile old man.

I can also sympathize with the caregivers. My buddy had a gramps with dementia, and both my parents had cognitive problems in their final months.

It is tragic... I just want people to not jump on the "boil him in oil! He shot an old senile man, the rotten SOB!" bandwagon without looking at the other side carefully.


And then there is the "Stand Your Ground" thing, which makes my head explode...

As I said, Castle Doctrine may well apply rather than SYG, I'm not sure if GA law extends it to your yard but many state's do.

Even so, REGARDLESS of "SYG" (misnamed and sensationalized, it just means you have no legal duty to retreat first), the shoot must STILL pass the basic tests for a lawful shoot: Reasonable belief of imminent threat of death or grave bodily harm.


The prosecutor has not yet decided, and may have facts before him that we do not. We're a long way from being able to condemn the man or exhonorate him, and some people are ALREADY blaming SYG and saying it has to be changed when we don't even know if it applies here and don't know if he will be charged or not! Oy.



Makes me crazy.
 
ric27 said:
You don't know that

**** happens when you least expect it

When you have split seconds to react, you simply cannot second guess yourself

It is what it is....you move forward and you never look back
Click to expand...

I have been in many many many life and death situations for me or for others...
I have saved the lives of others and almost died myself due to **** happening.

I understand that full well.

How is what you asked relevant though....
 

Again...take a look at, the title of the thread

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

WTF is that all about? It's the same bull**** mob mentality that was put on the Zimmerman case

If there are no grounds towards a formal charge/accusation of a serious crime then why this rabble rousing attitude by some?

The DA must not buckle under pressure from the unwashed masses
 
MichaelJR said:
Fixed it for ya
Click to expand...

keep dreaming. defending people getting away with crap like this shooting is why people 3 generations from today will not have a right to any gun whatsoever.
 

I don't argue just to argue. You make a good point at the distinction. I'll admit that.
 
Until recently I had a car that was irreplaceable. So, yea. Push come to shove. I'd kill someone to keep it. But to get to it, you would have to come into my garage and really work to get it, and by then you are either dropping to the ground or getting filled with holes.
 
It is sad to see how much people's rights have been trivialized and taken away. A person losing their car can cost them their job, their home, basically everything, that they'll have to labor for weeks and weeks solely to hope to replace it. But not to harm the thief just has to watch them steal it - and in doing so stealing their home, job, everything that person, spouse and children have. Or that retired widow on fixed income didn't need her car anyway. She can just walk to WalMart.

Maybe there, instead, should just be a special 25% surcharge paycheck deduction tax to finance thieves. A person would register officially as a thief, and then every month they would get $4000 and a month's supply of narcotics and liquor.

As long as you remember to wear a mask and gloves, if everyone agreed to no right to defend property, it would be a very lucrative career. Maybe could be college and technical school courses on how to be a thieve as a career. Mostly, it would be how to spot vulnerable people - old, women etc.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…