I don't think everyone is saying it was ok to shoot and kill the guy. They are saying that the guy shouldn't have put himself in that situation. Not exonerating the shooter for his actions, but pointing out that the situation was entirely avoidable and the actions of the victim directly contributed to his death. That isn't the same as saying the shooter was right in what he did.
So would Follower-Guy have been OK if he had not crossed into Yard-Guy's yard? If he berated Yard-Guy from the street?
At what point does the use of deadly force constitute self protection? We can't just say your justified to kill someone whenever you feel threatened. There'd be a whole lot of dead dudes laying around if every woman felt threatened by cat calling and creeps.
Well in a "stand your ground state", sounds to me that the threat of sexual assault would indeed be fair reasoning.
I like the concept of stand your ground because it forced both parties to be responsible for their actions and gives the victim a way to stand up for themselves.
I dislike it because it seems its too likely to be abused.
We don't know he charged. That's what the shooter's wife said. Another witness said he was backing away. (Bias much?)
What if he didn't charge?
What I want to know is........why the berkeley was the (now) dead guy following someone home to confront them.....with his family in the car?!
You want to be a tough guy.....great. You want to "teach this guy a lesson" in front of your kids? Sorry, looks like the lesson they are going to learn is a hard one.....that they have lost their father because he couldn't control his temper.
In FL, if you feel your life is in danger, you are legally able to use deadly force. I see the shooter in this case going free. If he would have been the follower, instead of the pursued one..... the case may have had a different ending. Then again...maybe not....Zimmerman was the aggressor, and he got off.
take home lesson------ control your emotions--- anger doesn't make you tough, it makes you stupid.
Two dumb asses for sure. The victim shouldn't have followed the shooter home. He shouldn't have got out of the car, but that doesn't mean it's his own fault for getting shot. That's victim blaming. That's like saying a kid texting while crossing the road is at fault when hit by a drunk driver.
Also, Florida may be a stand your ground state, but telling the cops you are going home to get your gun which is locked and loaded several minutes before the shooting sounds to me like intention to use it. Then firing once should have been enough to stop him. Firing 5 times, hitting the the guy 4 times sounds like over kill. Then forcing the rest of the family out of the car at gun point and preventing them trying to help the dying guy doesn't sound anything like standing your ground to me, it sounds like you are a prize shiny happy person who deserves a long spell behind bars to contemplate what an ass he is and never being allowed access to fire arms again.
Guns make stupid more stupider.
It's pretty obvious what the real problem is here. Not enough guns. If everybody had guns, the wife and kids especially, everyone would have been safer.
Gameboy, you're not wrong. This is absurd.
Zomby Woof wrote: It's pretty obvious what the real problem is here. Not enough guns. If everybody had guns, the wife and kids especially, everyone would have been safer.
an armed society is a polite society.. 
Nope.. A polite society is a polite society.. Armed or not.
Zomby Woof wrote: It's pretty obvious what the real problem is here. Not enough guns. If everybody had guns, the wife and kids especially, everyone would have been safer. Gameboy, you're not wrong. This is absurd.
It IS absurd... and yet again, none of it is the gun's fault. Would the hostile follower be any less dead if the guy had beat him to death with a tire iron?
Gotta get a little closer with a tire iron. It probably would take more time too.
Wether or not he deserved to die, he put himself in a situation where it could happen so he carries some of the blame. I am a pretty big shiny happy person but there I also have a pretty good sense of self preservation that keeps me from getting into many situations where I will be harmed. There is a part of me that thinks its a shame only one hot head was shot to death.
Adrian_Thompson wrote: Two dumb asses for sure. The victim shouldn't have followed the shooter home. He shouldn't have got out of the car, but that doesn't mean it's his own fault for getting shot. That's victim blaming. That's like saying a kid texting while crossing the road is at fault when hit by a drunk driver. Also, Florida may be a stand your ground state, but telling the cops you are going home to get your gun which is locked and loaded several minutes before the shooting sounds to me like intention to use it. Then firing once should have been enough to stop him. Firing 5 times, hitting the the guy 4 times sounds like over kill. Then forcing the rest of the family out of the car at gun point and preventing them trying to help the dying guy doesn't sound anything like standing your ground to me, it sounds like you are a prize shiny happy person who deserves a long spell behind bars to contemplate what an ass he is and never being allowed access to fire arms again.
but would never have happened if he hadn't been followed … if the situation happened to me, I'm pretty sure I'd get my rifle and load it and be back on my porch pretty quickly … maybe not … maybe I'd stand there and let the guy beat my head in … though I doubt it
I doubt that I'd have fired 5 times, and I doubt that I'd stop the passengers from trying to help their dying Father
but he wouldn't be dying if he hadn't followed me home
If there is an unarmed man walking towards you, and you have a gun, why would you shoot to kill? That's my question. A shot in each knee would have put the guy on the ground, not killed him. Then he wouldn't be "charging" at you anymore. It just seems like stand your ground means "kill whoever you want if they come close enough." If deadly force isn't necessary, you shouldn't use it.
KatieSuddard wrote: It just seems like stand your ground means "kill whoever you want if they come close enough."
nailed it. Especially in floriduh...
Being Canadian the thought of shooting some guy in my front yard is very alien to me. Now, you enter my home at night, then its on like donkey kong. This "stand your ground" BS sounds highly suspicious.
In reply to KatieSuddard:
While I agree with you completely in principal, stunt shots are just that - stunts, and very easy to miss. If you're prepared to fire your gun, you need to be prepared to kill something with it. There is a reason why police are trained to aim at center of body mass.
The far better thing would be to avoid drawing the gun at all. They were on the phone with 911. Instead of leading the guy home, he should have asked the cops where to lead the guy that they could intercept.
KatieSuddard wrote: If there is an unarmed man walking towards you, and you have a gun, why would you shoot to kill? That's my question. A shot in each knee would have put the guy on the ground, not killed him. Then he wouldn't be "charging" at you anymore. It just seems like stand your ground means "kill whoever you want if they come close enough." If deadly force isn't necessary, you shouldn't use it.
Ugh... I wasn't going to to wade into this, but shooting to wound is never the right answer. Life isn't an action thriller. Firearms are not to be used unless the only option is to stop an attacker. An attacker is stopped by placing 2-3 rounds in the center of mass.
"If deadly force isn't necessary, you shouldn't use it." Is actually 100% correct, but discharging a firearm is always deadly force. If you don't need to kill someone you don't need to be shooting them at all. The problem is, it is very hard to make those determinations in the heat of the moment. I also agree stand your ground is very problematic as it seems to be implemented in Florida.
Datsun1500 wrote: He did not "go home to get his gun". The gun was in the car. I'm not a gun guy, I don't think this guy deserved to die, etc. My argument is, he is to blame. He could have stopped it at anytime. If you want to be the tough guy, you suffer the consequences.
Thats absolutely correct, play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Getting out of your car to defend your vehicular honor in front of some strangers home is idiotic....saying that, stupid bastard did not deserve to die.
Zomby Woof wrote: Gameboy, you're not wrong. This is absurd.
Based on the facts I've seen, we don't know if he's wrong or not. He's guessing, just like almost everyone in this thread, and making statements based on opinion, not fact or law.
Here's a thought, lets give the courts a chance to do their job. That's what they are there for. Then you can read the court transcripts and make a informed decision, rather than spouting off which ever brand of rhetoric you prefer.
aircooled wrote: Guns make stupid more stupider.
Not more stupider, just more permanent. You can also replace the word gun, with all kinds of things.
"Police said Doyle pointed his gun at Gonzalez's wife, daughter and grandson and forced them out of the truck until police arrived."
As noted, one of the "issues" with guns is that they make killing just really easy.
The rather poor example of equivalency of "if he had a crowbar" is a great example of this. If he did have a crowbar, and the guy was stupid (or crazy) enough to advance on him knowing he had it, it would be a LOT harder to kill the guy. A fractured skull, broken arm ect. Killing is certainly possible, but would likely involve a lot of horror show like activity, lots of splattered blood, brain parts flying etc, and a "want" to kill the guy over a period of minutes, not the seconds it takes to pump a few rounds into him.
The gun is not to blame, it just made everything a lot worse.
It might be a bit like someone driving a lifted truck with a huge steel bumper. Makes accident far more likely to be fatal then they otherwise would be.
Gun, crowbar, whichever the bottom line remains if he didn't need to follow this guy home to prove he was right he would still be alive. He went looking for a problem and got more than he expected. It's a dumb thing to do as a teenager but doing it with his family in the car was incredibly stupid. This could have ended much worse.
So did you all hear about the two brothers that attacked and killed four of their own family and putting one in the hospital in critical condition? No? Some would say it's because they used knives instead of guns. Had it been guns I'm sure everyone would have heard about it.
You'll need to log in to post.
