100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
| Topic: Texas man in stand-your-ground case | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
alleoops
on
Fri 06/15/12 11:33 AM
|
|
Texas man in stand-your-ground case could get life.
HOUSTON (AP) — A retired Houston-area firefighter faces up to life in prison after a jury convicted him of murder for gunning down his unarmed neighbor during a dispute over a noisy house party. http://www.mail.com/news/us/1360060-texas-man-stand-your-ground-case-life.html#.1362914-rightcolumn-MostReadArticles1-1 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Texas man in stand-your-ground case could get life. HOUSTON (AP) — A retired Houston-area firefighter faces up to life in prison after a jury convicted him of murder for gunning down his unarmed neighbor during a dispute over a noisy house party. http://www.mail.com/news/us/1360060-texas-man-stand-your-ground-case-life.html#.1362914-rightcolumn-MostReadArticles1-1
yeah, I think its hard for one to be 'standing their ground' if they are the initiator of the confrontation,,, but thats just me,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Fri 06/15/12 11:41 AM
|
|
Rodriguez's reference to standing his ground is similar to the claim made by George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer who is citing Florida's stand-your-ground law in his defense in the fatal February shooting of an unarmed teenager, Trayvon Martin. Rodriguez's case, however, was decided under a different kind of self-defense doctrine. Got to love the blank stare journalism, these are not even close in comparison.
This just offers up more evidence against the claims that stand your ground is ANY kind of license to kill. The root element of any self defense is ALWAYS a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm determined by a totality of the circumstances. Even in Texas a reasonable fear is not something taken lightly. Being approached by a couple of guys who dont like you is not a deadly threat . . . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rodriguez's reference to standing his ground is similar to the claim made by George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer who is citing Florida's stand-your-ground law in his defense in the fatal February shooting of an unarmed teenager, Trayvon Martin. Rodriguez's case, however, was decided under a different kind of self-defense doctrine. Got to love the blank stare journalism, these are not even close in comparison.
This just offers up more evidence against the claims that stand your ground is ANY kind of license to kill. The root element of any self defense is ALWAYS a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm determined by a totality of the circumstances. there is that word 'reasonable' again was it reasonable for the man to fear for his life if someone told him they were getting a gun to shoot him? can 'words' make someone 'reasonably' fearful for their life? and when is 'avoidance' reasonable during such a confrontation when 'retreat' is not mandatory for either party? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Fri 06/15/12 11:46 AM
|
|
Rodriguez's reference to standing his ground is similar to the claim made by George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer who is citing Florida's stand-your-ground law in his defense in the fatal February shooting of an unarmed teenager, Trayvon Martin. Rodriguez's case, however, was decided under a different kind of self-defense doctrine. Got to love the blank stare journalism, these are not even close in comparison.
This just offers up more evidence against the claims that stand your ground is ANY kind of license to kill. The root element of any self defense is ALWAYS a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm determined by a totality of the circumstances. there is that word 'reasonable' again was it reasonable for the man to fear for his life if someone told him they were getting a gun to shoot him? can 'words' make someone 'reasonably' fearful for their life? and when is 'avoidance' reasonable during such a confrontation when 'retreat' is not mandatory for either party? If someone said, "I am going to get my gun and come kill you". No that is not a reasonable threat becuase they do not have the means to immediately carry it out, they have to go get there gun. I am, as always, impressed at your lack of legal understanding despite your professional experience. Immediacy of the threat matters, as does the capability to carry out the threat. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The good thing to come out of this is he will trim down in prison.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rodriguez's reference to standing his ground is similar to the claim made by George Zimmerman, a neighborhood watch volunteer who is citing Florida's stand-your-ground law in his defense in the fatal February shooting of an unarmed teenager, Trayvon Martin. Rodriguez's case, however, was decided under a different kind of self-defense doctrine. Got to love the blank stare journalism, these are not even close in comparison.
This just offers up more evidence against the claims that stand your ground is ANY kind of license to kill. The root element of any self defense is ALWAYS a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm determined by a totality of the circumstances. there is that word 'reasonable' again was it reasonable for the man to fear for his life if someone told him they were getting a gun to shoot him? can 'words' make someone 'reasonably' fearful for their life? and when is 'avoidance' reasonable during such a confrontation when 'retreat' is not mandatory for either party? If someone said, "I am going to get my gun and come kill you". No that is not a reasonable threat becuase they do not have the means to immediately carry it out, they have to go get there gun. I am, as always, impressed at your lack of legal understanding despite your professional experience. Immediacy of the threat matters, as does the capability to carry out the threat. I Am glad you see my point I agree that , in this case, merely stating an intent to harm isnt reason to fear,, but his lawyers apparently were arguing otherwise what I dont think you have addressed is how far 'reasonable' goes, does it only pertain to how a thing starts or does it pertain to the confrontation in entirety because certainly, once two people are in a confrontation that is physical, if ONE Has 'reasonable' fear of physical harm, BOTH do and then, what determines the case or is any physical altercation in which either party could die automatically result in a 'pass' for the survivor? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Fri 06/15/12 11:58 AM
|
|
I Am glad you see my point I agree that , in this case, merely stating an intent to harm isnt reason to fear,, but his lawyers apparently were arguing otherwise what I dont think you have addressed is how far 'reasonable' goes, does it only pertain to how a thing starts or does it pertain to the confrontation in entirety because certainly, once two people are in a confrontation that is physical, if ONE Has 'reasonable' fear of physical harm, BOTH do and then, what determines the case or is any physical altercation in which either party could die automatically result in a 'pass' for the survivor? Our justice system does the best it can with the evidence it can get collected by the police and no two circumstances are identical, which is why blanket laws cannot work. They must have standards, and elements which either match or do not match. Reasonable is also often confused, it is not a simple matter of subjectivity of the jury. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Fri 06/15/12 12:00 PM
|
|
I Am glad you see my point I agree that , in this case, merely stating an intent to harm isnt reason to fear,, but his lawyers apparently were arguing otherwise what I dont think you have addressed is how far 'reasonable' goes, does it only pertain to how a thing starts or does it pertain to the confrontation in entirety because certainly, once two people are in a confrontation that is physical, if ONE Has 'reasonable' fear of physical harm, BOTH do and then, what determines the case or is any physical altercation in which either party could die automatically result in a 'pass' for the survivor? Our justice system does the best it can with the evidence it can get collected by the police and no two circumstances are identical, which is why blanket laws cannot work. They must have standards, and elements which either match or do not match. Reasonable is also often confused, it is not a simple matter of subjectivity of the jury. I agree, blanket laws dont work,,,, and the totality of the circumstances are what matter not merely being 'reasonbably fearful' |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bushidobillyclub
on
Fri 06/15/12 12:04 PM
|
|
In fact as a supporter of 2A, and civil rights in general I am happy to see examples of people trying to claim SYG, or MMD laws and having the objective elements be shown to not exist.
That way we can show that self defense is more than just a way to murder and get away with it. (Not that this was really in question by anyone without a strong anti2a agenda, or the uninformed) Self defense is a long standing tradition and well supported by common law, none of these events are new AT ALL. Politics has recently picked back up the rhetoric, and the race baiting from Trayvon martin fed the media circus and got all the Anti-2a activists in a froth, but other than that this is all very normal proceedings from a legal stand point. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Sojourning_Soul
on
Fri 06/15/12 12:08 PM
|
|
I Am glad you see my point I agree that , in this case, merely stating an intent to harm isnt reason to fear,, but his lawyers apparently were arguing otherwise what I dont think you have addressed is how far 'reasonable' goes, does it only pertain to how a thing starts or does it pertain to the confrontation in entirety because certainly, once two people are in a confrontation that is physical, if ONE Has 'reasonable' fear of physical harm, BOTH do and then, what determines the case or is any physical altercation in which either party could die automatically result in a 'pass' for the survivor? Our justice system does the best it can with the evidence it can get collected by the police and no two circumstances are identical, which is why blanket laws cannot work. They must have standards, and elements which either match or do not match. Reasonable is also often confused, it is not a simple matter of subjectivity of the jury. I agree, blanket laws dont work,,,, and the totality of the circumstances are what matter not merely being 'reasonbably fearful' The Obozocare personal mandate is an unconstitutional blanket law... but you are for that! One might argue this as a case of abuse by the neighbor against this mans property rights, and that abuse led to his inability to maintain any further..... but that's just me |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I Am glad you see my point I agree that , in this case, merely stating an intent to harm isnt reason to fear,, but his lawyers apparently were arguing otherwise what I dont think you have addressed is how far 'reasonable' goes, does it only pertain to how a thing starts or does it pertain to the confrontation in entirety because certainly, once two people are in a confrontation that is physical, if ONE Has 'reasonable' fear of physical harm, BOTH do and then, what determines the case or is any physical altercation in which either party could die automatically result in a 'pass' for the survivor? Our justice system does the best it can with the evidence it can get collected by the police and no two circumstances are identical, which is why blanket laws cannot work. They must have standards, and elements which either match or do not match. Reasonable is also often confused, it is not a simple matter of subjectivity of the jury. I agree, blanket laws dont work,,,, and the totality of the circumstances are what matter not merely being 'reasonbably fearful' The Obozocare personal mandate is an unconstitutional blanket law... but you are for that! One might argue this as a case of abuse by the neighbor against this mans property rights, and that abuse led to his inability to maintain any further..... but that's just me its not a 'blanket' law, it has exceptions in it as well for exceptional cases |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I Am glad you see my point I agree that , in this case, merely stating an intent to harm isnt reason to fear,, but his lawyers apparently were arguing otherwise what I dont think you have addressed is how far 'reasonable' goes, does it only pertain to how a thing starts or does it pertain to the confrontation in entirety because certainly, once two people are in a confrontation that is physical, if ONE Has 'reasonable' fear of physical harm, BOTH do and then, what determines the case or is any physical altercation in which either party could die automatically result in a 'pass' for the survivor? Our justice system does the best it can with the evidence it can get collected by the police and no two circumstances are identical, which is why blanket laws cannot work. They must have standards, and elements which either match or do not match. Reasonable is also often confused, it is not a simple matter of subjectivity of the jury. I agree, blanket laws dont work,,,, and the totality of the circumstances are what matter not merely being 'reasonbably fearful' The Obozocare personal mandate is an unconstitutional blanket law... but you are for that! One might argue this as a case of abuse by the neighbor against this mans property rights, and that abuse led to his inability to maintain any further..... but that's just me its not a 'blanket' law, it has exceptions in it as well for exceptional cases Sure....those who pay over inflated premiums for their own coverage....the poor go to jail! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I Am glad you see my point I agree that , in this case, merely stating an intent to harm isnt reason to fear,, but his lawyers apparently were arguing otherwise what I dont think you have addressed is how far 'reasonable' goes, does it only pertain to how a thing starts or does it pertain to the confrontation in entirety because certainly, once two people are in a confrontation that is physical, if ONE Has 'reasonable' fear of physical harm, BOTH do and then, what determines the case or is any physical altercation in which either party could die automatically result in a 'pass' for the survivor? Our justice system does the best it can with the evidence it can get collected by the police and no two circumstances are identical, which is why blanket laws cannot work. They must have standards, and elements which either match or do not match. Reasonable is also often confused, it is not a simple matter of subjectivity of the jury. I agree, blanket laws dont work,,,, and the totality of the circumstances are what matter not merely being 'reasonbably fearful' The Obozocare personal mandate is an unconstitutional blanket law... but you are for that! One might argue this as a case of abuse by the neighbor against this mans property rights, and that abuse led to his inability to maintain any further..... but that's just me its not a 'blanket' law, it has exceptions in it as well for exceptional cases Sure....those who pay over inflated premiums for their own coverage....the poor go to jail! no, the poor are eligible for coverage under safety net programs already,,,, |
|
|
|
|
