Mute Air Force Veteran with advanced Alzheimer's murdered after ringing doorbell: Stand Your Ground - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Rangergxi;43066870]In this case its 10 minutes later and the "intruder" is standing around on the law.[/QUOTE] Better murder him, instead of calling 911.

[QUOTE=Sableye;43066925]generally when someone rings my doorbell at 4 am its because they need help not that they want to rob me...[/QUOTE] When people ring my doorbell at 4am it is because they are drunk and my house looks a lot like my neighbor's house ever since he elected to paint it the same fucking color as mine. [editline]4th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=booster;43066941]Better murder him, instead of calling 911.[/QUOTE] No no, you call 911, wait ten minutes, THEN murder him in the yard.

I disagree with the sources stating it's unlikely the homeowner will be charged with a crime. Any lawyer worth his salt will understand what SYG protects and that this guy almost certainly wasn't protected by it. It's also worth taking into consideration that even when SYG is cited legitimately they still need to determine if the killing was 'justifiable.' If a mugger, for example, is found to have a weapon but also has entry wounds in his back, that's not justifiable. I can't see any sensible judge or jury finding what this guy did to be justified. What the sources don't mention (because nobody ever seems to) is that SYG isn't a blanket that makes everything okay; "protected under SYG" in all likelihood means he can try to cite it, but that is in no way a guarantee that he'll be found innocent of any crime.

[QUOTE=Ekalektik_1;43066998]I disagree with the sources stating it's unlikely the homeowner will be charged with a crime. Any lawyer worth his salt will understand what SYG protects and that this guy almost certainly wasn't protected by it. It's also worth taking into consideration that even when SYG is cited legitimately they still need to determine if the killing was 'justifiable.' If a mugger, for example, is found to have a weapon but also has entry wounds in his back, that's not justifiable. I can't see any sensible judge or jury finding what this guy did to be justified. What the sources don't mention (because nobody ever seems to) is that SYG isn't a blanket that makes everything okay; "protected under SYG" in all likelihood means he can try to cite it, but that is in no way a guarantee that he'll be found innocent of any crime.[/QUOTE] Let me just stop you there, your argument is sound and all, but we're never going to push an agenda without name dropping poorly understood, non-applicable laws and leading readers into the conclusion that using them to get away with crimes is the norm.

[QUOTE=agentalexandre;43066660]While it was stupid of the guy to kill him, I kind of understand what was going through his head. It's a bit freaky to have some guy turning your doorknob in the middle of the night and then not saying a word. Doesn't particularly justify the murder though.[/QUOTE] [quote]Mr Westbrook [b]rang the door bell[/b] and turned the door handle of the home in the new development where Hendrix had just moved in with his fiancée. [/quote] I don't think many burglars would let their intended victims know they're coming in.

Mad-Eye Moody called, he wants his paranoid notions back. What a fucking tool, you feel really chilled when you hear about people getting shot just because 'Stand Your Ground' permitted it.

[QUOTE=FZE;43067754]Let me just stop you there, your argument is sound and all, but we're never going to push an agenda without name dropping poorly understood, non-applicable laws and leading readers into the conclusion that using them to get away with crimes is the norm.[/QUOTE] Even if it's not applicable in this specific scenario, SYG and other "justifiable killing" laws in the US are pretty ugly-- if not in theory, then at least in practice. While the idea of being able to "stand your ground" using lethal force in a situation where you have reasonable cause to believe that your life is at risk sounds all well and good, "reasonable cause" is a very poorly defined concept, and one which is open to a huge amount of bias, discrimination. and interpretation. Minorities, especially, receive very little protection from these laws when attempting to use them in their own defense, and when used [I]against[/I] minorities they are overwhelmingly a negative thing. [img]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/art/cats/cj/graph072512.png[/img] SYG laws, at the very least, need to be much more clearly defined and regulated, because as they currently exist they do more harm than good, and doubly so where minorities are involved.

[QUOTE=GunFox;43066645]No, they really shouldn't. This isn't protected under stand your ground laws. The shooter left the dwelling to confront the guy, who merely refused commands, but made no aggressive maneuvers. No forcible entry or anything of the sort. It is plainly illegal. The idea that it might not be prosecuted is purely speculation. Stand your ground is precisely what it sounds like. If someone threatens you, and a reasonable person would perceive it as a valid and IMMINENT threat of serious bodily harm (like s/he has a weapon and has it in hand) you do not have to first attempt to flee provided you have a legal right to be where you are. Since turning your back to an assailant can easily result in your death, it removes your requirement to do so.[/QUOTE] Exactly my thoughts, this guy just out-right murdered this guy. I'm totally for stand your ground and other gun related laws. But this isn't a case of that, as you said there was no immediate threat of bodily harm. Last time i checked ringing the door bell of someones home isn't a crime. If he was that fucking scared of this man he should have stayed in the house and awaited police response... This man should be charged with manslaughter or murder. [QUOTE=Raidyr;43066650]If you thought someone was enough of a threat to call the cops and load your gun, why on earth would you go outside to confront them?[/QUOTE] This guy escalated the issue in my opinion. The whole point of stand your ground and castle laws is to give you an last option. IE I cannot flee, I'm going to die I have to defend myself. This shit does not cover leaving the safety and confines of your home and shooting someone.

[QUOTE=certified;43066690]Can you blame the shooter though? Most people don't go randomly ringing doorbells at 4 in the morning, and someone acting weird and uncooperative like someone with advanced Alzheimers is bound to be mistaken for a criminal or a drunk about to do something criminal. Note that the shooter was either overtired or hastily woken up and had a hard time properly identifying the victim in a confused and disoriented wakeup. That, and the wife was already calling 911, so the thought that the ringer might attack or rob them was clearly in their minds already.[/QUOTE] Oh no! A 72 year old! Better get my M249.

The older they are, the more deadly they are. 72 years of learning how to kill turns you into a machine of death that cannot be stopped.

[QUOTE=Levithan;43068694]The older they are, the more deadly they are. 72 years of learning how to kill turns you into a machine of death that cannot be stopped.[/QUOTE] god save us all if he reached level 100

[QUOTE=GunFox;43066645]No, they really shouldn't. This isn't protected under stand your ground laws. The shooter left the dwelling to confront the guy, who merely refused commands, but made no aggressive maneuvers. No forcible entry or anything of the sort. It is plainly illegal. The idea that it might not be prosecuted is purely speculation. Stand your ground is precisely what it sounds like. If someone threatens you, and a reasonable person would perceive it as a valid and IMMINENT threat of serious bodily harm (like s/he has a weapon and has it in hand) you do not have to first attempt to flee provided you have a legal right to be where you are. Since turning your back to an assailant can easily result in your death, it removes your requirement to do so.[/QUOTE] To add to this- When ever stand your ground is used as a defense, it is put under a microscope and looked at very closely. In a lot of cases, it is determined that the "stand your ground" defense isn't applicable.

[QUOTE=TheAdmiester;43066704]Who rings a doorbell to rob someone?[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9n11xtjZ3Y[/media]

[QUOTE=TheAdmiester;43066704]Who rings a doorbell to rob someone?[/QUOTE] [B][I]Exactly.[/I][/B]

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;43067944]Even if it's not applicable in this specific scenario, SYG and other "justifiable killing" laws in the US are pretty ugly-- if not in theory, then at least in practice. While the idea of being able to "stand your ground" using lethal force in a situation where you have reasonable cause to believe that your life is at risk sounds all well and good, "reasonable cause" is a very poorly defined concept, and one which is open to a huge amount of bias, discrimination. and interpretation. Minorities, especially, receive very little protection from these laws when attempting to use them in their own defense, and when used [I]against[/I] minorities they are overwhelmingly a negative thing. SYG laws, at the very least, need to be much more clearly defined and regulated, because as they currently exist they do more harm than good, and doubly so where minorities are involved.[/QUOTE] Clearer establishment of Stand Your Ground laws' applicability benefits everyone and we should strive to eliminate the ambiguities you bring up; the issue being raised at least by me is that any time a murder happens someone sees an opportunity to shoehorn an SYG debate into the discussion when the law is typically not germane and at best tangentially related to the event. The headline for this topic's message is "Stand Your Ground laws let a murderer get away with killing a disabled veteran, isn't that terrible?", while no one but the [I]thoroughly unbiased[/i] thinkprogress.org has brought up the law (and managed to reference Trayvon Martin, another shooting in which SYG was not cited, in doing so), and with, as Ekelektik had brought up, no evidence that SYG would be a defense in this case, let alone a successful one.

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;43067944]Even if it's not applicable in this specific scenario, SYG and other "justifiable killing" laws in the US are pretty ugly-- if not in theory, then at least in practice. While the idea of being able to "stand your ground" using lethal force in a situation where you have reasonable cause to believe that your life is at risk sounds all well and good, "reasonable cause" is a very poorly defined concept, and one which is open to a huge amount of bias, discrimination. and interpretation. Minorities, especially, receive very little protection from these laws when attempting to use them in their own defense, and when used [I]against[/I] minorities they are overwhelmingly a negative thing. [img]http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/art/cats/cj/graph072512.png[/img] SYG laws, at the very least, need to be much more clearly defined and regulated, because as they currently exist they do more harm than good, and doubly so where minorities are involved.[/QUOTE] That has a lot to do with the fact that stand your ground laws are not like many other laws. (Generally) They make it a legal defense, not legal, to shoot someone in special circumstances. Since the idea behind laws which produce legal defenses is that they must then be argued on a case by case basis. While I agree that racism is a huge issue in the United States, your chart isn't sufficient to actually proclaim racism in this case. Mind you that I agree that racism DOES APPLY here, we aren't accounting for the fact that african Americans are disproportionately impoverished (a result of racism and lack of social capital) and commit crime in keeping with their rate of poverty (a poor white person is just as likely to commit crime as a poor black person, but percentagewise there are far more poor black folks than there should be in the US, so they wind up numerically committing more crime than their population should suggest) Basically there is an excellent chance that many of those shootings are perfectly valid. The information provided makes a pretty chart, but isn't the full picture. Note that I'm not saying the conclusion is incorrect, people are racist as shit and none more than the entire us legal system, merely that it is a weak argument without further study.

[QUOTE=Cushie;43066817]How about this: If you ring someone's doorbell in the middle of the night needing help and they come out screaming and waving a gun in your face, would you be justified pulling a concealed gun out and shooting them dead in their own doorway since they are an immediate threat to you? What if both people shot each other and survived? Would they both be protected by stand your ground because they both genuinely saw each other as a threat?[/QUOTE] Is it bad if I find your statement funny because it sounds like it could actually happen? :v: Anyway, what people need to do is stop claiming stand your ground where it clearly should not apply. Although from what I've heard, the SYG law seems to only apply whenever it feels like it wants to. In one case, some guy got away with murder by claiming the stand your ground law. He ran after and stabbed the person who stole his car. In some other cases, people are convicted of crimes while legitimately defending themselves, due to the incompetence of their defense attorneys, or not being able to claim the stand your ground defense. It really seems like it can go either way on a case by case basis.

[QUOTE=certified;43066725]The same kind of robber dumb enough to brag on Facebook afterward.[/QUOTE] haha what the fuck are you kidding

[QUOTE=ultra_bright;43066635]Alzheimer's is a horrible disease. If I ever get Alzheimer's, you can shoot me too.[/QUOTE] It runs in my family! Yaaaaaaaaaaaa-kill me. [editline]4th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=dai;43068944]god save us all if he reached level 100[/QUOTE] Dude I can only get to 80!

[QUOTE=GunFox;43069431]That has a lot to do with the fact that stand your ground laws are not like many other laws. (Generally) They make it a legal defense, not legal, to shoot someone in special circumstances. Since the idea behind laws which produce legal defenses is that they must then be argued on a case by case basis. While I agree that racism is a huge issue in the United States, your chart isn't sufficient to actually proclaim racism in this case. Mind you that I agree that racism DOES APPLY here, we aren't accounting for the fact that african Americans are disproportionately impoverished (a result of racism and lack of social capital) and commit crime in keeping with their rate of poverty (a poor white person is just as likely to commit crime as a poor black person, but percentagewise there are far more poor black folks than there should be in the US, so they wind up numerically committing more crime than their population should suggest) Basically there is an excellent chance that many of those shootings are perfectly valid. The information provided makes a pretty chart, but isn't the full picture. Note that I'm not saying the conclusion is incorrect, people are racist as shit and none more than the entire us legal system, merely that it is a weak argument without further study.[/QUOTE] Yes, there's no denying that black crime rates are higher in the US, for the reasons you pointed out, but this chart does show that even in those instances of black-on-black crime, justifiable homicide law defense is still 25% less likely to be considered a valid than white-on-white scenarios, and nearly [I]400%[/I] less likely than white-on-black. That is [B]quite[/B] a discrepancy. If these figures were largely a result of black crime rates being higher, then certainly [I]any[/I] combination of an justifiable homicide defense resulting in a black fellow getting shot would show higher rates of the defense being claimed, and not just white-on-black? It's very hard to argue that racial bias isn't a major factor in this system, if not the primary force. At the very least, this chart points out some dramatic imbalances in these laws, which we badly need to address, and at worst they paint an extremely ugly picture of institutional racism.

regardless of the applicability of Stand Your Ground, incidents like this are absolutely a product of Americas noxious gun culture and so long as we justify using guns to escalate situations and perpetuate the myth that these wild-west style "you kill them or they kill you" moments are constantly occurring everywhere shit like this is going to keep happening

Let's look at the facts here: Paranoid American Veteran who served 3 tours hears someone ring his doorbell at 4 AM, tries to grab his gun, but no flashlight, because you don't need light to see FREEDOM. But when he bends over to grab it, his girth gets a forward momentum and he rolls like a bowling ball through the front door onto the yard. The so-called mute "veteran"? Actually a crocodile-teared demo[B]crap[/B] out on an abortion spree and has a pet that he said was actually a rock before, it still is, but that it is sentient after billions of years of evolution. The True American Hero pointed his thermonuclear AK47 with a tactical grip at the dirty Marx-loving Commie and unloads, killing the man and every student and moviegoer in a 10-mile radius. Afterwards, a plane crashed into the house and something that resembles a giant caterpillar but is actually multiple obese people attached together with old bacon grease crawls out throwing tips at the Hero while clapping and screaming "GOOD JAB". And then everyone went to their local Chick-Fil-A and became a true freedom-loving christian conservative, the end. [thumb]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-o2qbX4ISf1U/ThJDpxT7AeI/AAAAAAAAAjo/mLXLPv3Bo3k/s1600/crying+bald+eagle.gif[/thumb]

[QUOTE=Big Dumb American;43069654]Yes, there's no denying that black crime rates are higher in the US, for the reasons you pointed out, but this chart does show that even in those instances of black-on-black crime, justifiable homicide law defense is still 25% less likely to be considered a valid than white-on-white scenarios, and nearly [I]400%[/I] less likely than white-on-black. That is [B]quite[/B] a discrepancy. If these figures were largely a result of black crime rates being higher, then certainly [I]any[/I] combination of an justifiable homicide defense resulting in a black fellow getting shot would show higher rates of the defense being claimed, and not just white-on-black? It's very hard to argue that racial bias isn't a major factor in this system, if not the primary force. At the very least, this chart points out some dramatic imbalances in these laws, which we badly need to address, and at worst they paint an extremely ugly picture of institutional racism.[/QUOTE] I agree, but there still isn't enough information to conclusively prove that there. If we take that blacks are generally poorer as a given, and go further and start getting into education and everything related that, then you have to account for whether or not they can actually receive proper legal counsel, and how rushed the courts are in their area, etc. I think you'd be crazy to deny that racism isn't a problem, as Gunfox effectively said, but that data doesn't definitively show that.

[QUOTE=Zephyrs;43069835]I agree, but there still isn't enough information to conclusively prove that there. If we take that blacks are generally poorer as a given, and go further and start getting into education and everything related that, then you have to account for whether or not they can actually receive proper legal counsel, and how rushed the courts are in their area, etc. I think you'd be crazy to deny that racism isn't a problem, as Gunfox effectively said, but that data doesn't definitively show that.[/QUOTE] Ye, very true. Something to consider, at least.

Man, facepunch sh always seems to be under the hindsight is 20/20 effect. Yea, I think the shooter overreacted and shouldn't of shot the guy, but I guarantee most of you havn't even been in a situation remotely similar to this, so you have no idea how you yourself would've acted faced with this. But most of you play battlefield so I am sure you would taken command of the situation at 4 am, grabbed a flash light immediately with your super organized thoughts and used your immense knowledge of nonverbal communication to subdue the person. So lets look at this realistically, the old man was probably just as confused and could've stumbled forward to the person hoping for help. In the dark, you see a person ignoring your commands moving oddly towards you, I am sure you all would've had ages to make a well thought out decision using your advanced training, right? Get real, life is never as easy and clean cut as you people seem to believe.

[QUOTE=certified;43066690]Can you blame the shooter though? Most people don't go randomly ringing doorbells at 4 in the morning[/QUOTE] not a reason to end the man's life.

[QUOTE=1chains1;43070066]So lets look at this realistically, the old man was probably just as confused and could've stumbled forward to the person hoping for help. In the dark, you see a person ignoring your commands moving oddly towards you, I am sure you all would've had ages to make a well thought out decision using your advanced training, right? Get real, life is never as easy and clean cut as you people seem to believe.[/QUOTE] if i saw a dark figure looming outside my house i would stay inside my house??? i dont think you have to be a member of seal team 6 to quickly make that judgement call

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;43069698]regardless of the applicability of Stand Your Ground, incidents like this are absolutely a product of Americas noxious gun culture and so long as we justify using guns to escalate situations and perpetuate the myth that these wild-west style "you kill them or they kill you" moments are constantly occurring everywhere shit like this is going to keep happening[/QUOTE] Sure the topic of discussion doesn't have a leg to stand on, but let's take this opportunity to reiterate that guns are bad rather than questoning why the media in support of that argument is wildly misinformed and intentionally misleading.

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;43070225]if i saw a dark figure looming outside my house i would stay inside my house??? i dont think you have to be a member of seal team 6 to quickly make that judgement call[/QUOTE] Yes YOU would stay inside your house, this is a completely different person who has a completely different thought process who had factors affecting him that you don't even know. Maybe he heard of all the shootings going on and moving in with his fiance he felt like he needed to protect what he loved? Maybe he is a hard ass who wanted to be a hero? The only thing we know is there is lack of information but you guys are so quick to pass judgement and take the high horse on what you would've done, yet you actaully have no idea how you would've acted given the circumstances. You can only look at it from the comfort and relatively relaxed situation you are in right now and scoff "OH I WOULDVE DONE THAT SOOOOO MUCH DIFFERENTLY!!!" I would love to see one of you woken up suddenly at 4 am and hear someone turning your doorknob knocking and say "oh its probably an old man who is confused!!!". I know personally the first thing I would think given the circumstances would be "a robber is trying to see if anyone is home".

[QUOTE=FZE;43070253]Sure the topic of discussion doesn't have a leg to stand on, but let's take this opportunity to reiterate that guns are bad rather than questoning why the media in support of that argument is wildly misinformed and intentionally misleading.[/QUOTE] If I wanted to say "guns are bad" I would come out and say it (guns are bad) instead of wasting a lot of time and effort to couch it inside another, more complex argument. i just believe that, as a society, we should maybe once and a while put away our guns and choose to avoid dangerous situations instead of doing sick max payne dives towards the nearest shadowy figures and suspicious characters [editline]4th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=1chains1;43070341]Yes YOU would stay inside your house, this is a completely different person who has a completely different thought process who had factors affecting him that you don't even know. Maybe he heard of all the shootings going on and moving in with his fiance he felt like he needed to protect what he loved?[/QUOTE] well if his (culturally endorsed) idea of "protecting his love" was to go charging into the darkness of the night with a loaded gun then that sort of proves my point? [editline]4th December 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=1chains1;43070341] I would love to see one of you woken up suddenly at 4 am and hear someone turning your doorknob knocking and say "oh its probably an old man who is confused!!!".[/QUOTE] "it's a murderer and I should blow them away" would only be one of the many different possibilities running through my mind, alongside "it's a person in need of help," "it's a family member coming unannounced" and, "finally, after all these years of waiting, I am finally about to receive a singing telegram." The fact that, apparently, loads of people jump to the first one and are so convinced that that is the correct call that they are willing to shoot first and ask questions later is indicative of the paranoia that is fostered in people by america's gun culture