'stand-your-ground’ law may apply to fatal shooting of man suffering Alzheimer’s

The Sheriff should have kept his mouth shut about "stand your ground" and kept his opinions to himself. State the facts in a news release and leave it at that. It seems like the Sheriff has some agenda behind even mentioning it.
 
I am sorry but all I have to say about this case is "imminent danger my pitooty". I will say that all I have to go on is what I perceive to be this case and do not really know all the facts that might add a little more to this story. It is one thing for someone being outside of the home and another thing for someone to forcibly enter my home, even by mistake, without permission. Easy for me to say while I sit in my house on a forum, but if I see someone outside of my home--say in my driveway and not doing anything other than walking around or just being suspicious, I will call 911 and I will have my firearm, but I will not be going outside and shoot him the first time he looks at me cockeyed. This guy may say he feared for his life, but I just have a hard time understanding why he felt it necessary to confront someone who really was not "doing anything" resembling a felony, why he did not call 911 and why he did not stay in his home. Feared for his life? Over what?
 
I must admit, there was a suspicious vehicle on my property once and I went to investigate with gun in hand. As soon as I was close enough to read the license plate I called 911. I was foolish, and that was a mistake that I won't make again. Call the police from inside the house and be prepared to shoot if they attempt to forcibly enter the house. I am not buying the self defense story either.
 
'stand-your-ground’ law may apply to fatal shooting of man suffering Alzheimer’s

It is people like this guy that give the antis more leverage against us.
 
kelcarry said:
I am sorry but all I have to say about this case is "imminent danger my pitooty". I will say that all I have to go on is what I perceive to be this case and do not really know all the facts that might add a little more to this story. It is one thing for someone being outside of the home and another thing for someone to forcibly enter my home, even by mistake, without permission. Easy for me to say while I sit in my house on a forum, but if I see someone outside of my home--say in my driveway and not doing anything other than walking around or just being suspicious, I will call 911 and I will have my firearm, but I will not be going outside and shoot him the first time he looks at me cockeyed. This guy may say he feared for his life, but I just have a hard time understanding why he felt it necessary to confront someone who really was not "doing anything" resembling a felony, why he did not call 911 and why he did not stay in his home. Feared for his life? Over what?
Click to expand...
Yup. Well said. I personally just wouldn't open the door. If he broke-in I would be inclined to stop him but even so, an old man without a weapon probably isn't going to cause much of a problem anyway. I keep remembering Mas Ayoob's advice when he said using a gun in self defense will probably ruin your life, whether you're right or wrong. A gun is tool of last resort. Use only when all options are exhausted or not possible.
 
Amazing... we've hung this man out to dry already and some have admittedly said that their opinion on hanging him out to dry is based on the limited information in the article and not having all the facts.
 
Who knows what happened. Cannot trust law enforcement half the time nor the media at all. Based on that, I gots nuttin'.
 
wolf_fire said:
Amazing... we've hung this man out to dry already and some have admittedly said that their opinion on hanging him out to dry is based on the limited information in the article and not having all the facts.
Click to expand...

Give members a break. Many might not have said it, but I know I did and I am sure, even though they did not say it, they all would easily agree with your comments--their comments, right or wrong, are based on what it out there right now and I am sure every one of them will happily "apologize" if the facts, as presented right now, turn out to be very very wrong. Just about every "what if", if it has not been put through the legal system and all the facts, as best they can be obtained and presented, is just hypothetical based, on what is there right now, and that is what all of us are commenting on.
 
kelcarry said:
Give members a break. Many might not have said it, but I know I did and I am sure, even though they did not say it, they all would easily agree with your comments--their comments, right or wrong, are based on what it out there right now and I am sure every one of them will happily "apologize" if the facts, as presented right now, turn out to be very very wrong. Just about every "what if", if it has not been put through the legal system and all the facts, as best they can be obtained and presented, is just hypothetical based, on what is there right now, and that is what all of us are commenting on.
Click to expand...


You're right, not all the facts are out and your comments are based on the very limited information in this article. I will give you that.

However, the conversation became quickly one-sided that the homeowner was certainly not justified... based on only the given facts. We all realize how the media twists information. You remember poor, sweet, such a good boy Trayvon Martin? That's how the media presented him. In fact mostly only showed a young picture of him to make him look more innocent. We know in this situation, it's an old man. How many old men do you know that are large and could rush you quickly? I know many.

Granted, we do know that going outside may not have been a smart move. However, now he is outside. Factors we do not know: how large was the old man, was he acting erratically, was he acting viciously, was he running or approaching the homeowner in what could be perceived as threatening at 4am? We know none of this, but are willing, for sake of argumentation and opining, to say he had no self-defense which if that is the case, should be charged with murder or man-slaughter. The court of public opinion in forums like these is what gives anti's their fodder, using mappow's term, the OP.

I reserve judging this man until there is a lot more evidence brought out. Anytime a situation like this occurs, I can see why I have a lawyer on retainer. Even the 2nd Amendment supporters want to hang this guy before knowing the facts, imagine what the anti's want to do.
 
So what I just read in the article is, if you approach this 34 year old man in the night, then you are going to be killed. Especially if you are a 72 year old person wandering around a neighborhood. Really what can a 72 year old man do to a 34 year old, this makes me so upset. You guys do not want to know, what I think should happen to this 34 year old. I am not buying this self defense story in the least, if the LEOs have a brain they aren't buying it either.
 
This may or may not be the case. As a CCW instructor I get a lot of questions about what you can get away with if you have to shoot someone. It seems some people are to eager to bring a gun into a situation.
 
This really is the anomaly not the rule, I hope. But unfortunately this is what's gets attention by the media.
 
3gunshooter said:
This may or may not be the case. As a CCW instructor I get a lot of questions about what you can get away with if you have to shoot someone. It seems some people are to eager to bring a gun into a situation.
Click to expand...
"When are we allow to shoot someone?" sort of question?
 
superprincess said:
So what I just read in the article is, if you approach this 34 year old man in the night, then you are going to be killed. Especially if you are a 72 year old person wandering around a neighborhood. Really what can a 72 year old man do to a 34 year old, this makes me so upset. You guys do not want to know, what I think should happen to this 34 year old. I am not buying this self defense story in the least, if the LEOs have a brain they aren't buying it either.
Click to expand...

Granted in most cases a 34 year old man would not be afraid of a 72 yo man. But that isn't always the case. We have no idea the physical stature of either of these two men. What if the 72 yo man was a 250 lb beast of a guy walking around erratically and possibly crazed, and the 34 yo was a 5'7" 145 lb weakling. Would that change some people's opinions?

The fact is, none of us knows now. It might turn out this homeowner is everything you all are saying. All I'm saying is, the facts aren't out yet. Until then, we do no firearm owner any service by turning on him the moment we "think" he did wrong. Give him the benefit of the doubt first, since we all have a lot of doubt about all the facts.
 
wolf_fire said:
Granted in most cases a 34 year old man would not be afraid of a 72 yo man. But that isn't always the case. We have no idea the physical stature of either of these two men. What if the 72 yo man was a 250 lb beast of a guy walking around erratically and possibly crazed, and the 34 yo was a 5'7" 145 lb weakling. Would that change some people's opinions?

The fact is, none of us knows now. It might turn out this homeowner is everything you all are saying. All I'm saying is, the facts aren't out yet. Until then, we do no firearm owner any service by turning on him the moment we "think" he did wrong. Give him the benefit of the doubt first, since we all have a lot of doubt about all the facts.
Click to expand...
You are absolutely right; then again, this is just a forum where we can express our opinions, right or wrong and our forum is NOT overwhelming public opinion that is going to make a difference to the legal system. It seems that a stupid sheriff could not keep his mouth shut about something that is NOT in his list of public duties. We would not be taking such strong stands on this SYG issue, if it had not been raised by this sheriff. We probably would still be discussing this relative to imminent danger but not to the extent we seem to be. Regardless, in all the accounts and comments so far, I have never found anything relating to anything that this old man had that was clearly imminent danger. Better be more than a homeowner "being scared" about a disoriented old man.
 
wolf_fire said:
Correction, like some​ did to Zimmerman.

Ok, like many did.
Click to expand...
In retrospect they may have been right. I reserved judgment on Z because no one really knew what happened. I couldn't find him guilty on the evidence, but his recent acts have me wondering what really happened that night.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 181 (members: 0, guests: 181)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
49,523
Messages
610,661
Members
74,992
Latest member
RedDotArmsTraining

Share this page

Back
Top