Man claiming SYG in TX after initiating confrontation

[Mr. Brooks]

What drunken redneck are you talking about? From what I read it seems like the guy with a gun was the sober one.

I'm glad you are confident in your abilities, but as the saying goes there is always someone better and faster.

If this had taken place at my house it would have looked like this;

Guy with gun shows up and asks me to turn the music down. I say "no problem sir, have a nice night" Then he goes home.

I go inside, turn the music down and call the police, crack another beer and watch the show as the Leo's arrest said neighbor.

After all, if I'm drinking my guns are locked up so I wouldn't be able to draw it anyway.

Edit: No capitulating, no begging, and nobody dies. Ymmv

Edited June 9, 2012 by Mr. Brooks

[TMF]

What drunken redneck are you talking about? From what I read it seems like the guy with a gun was the sober one.

I'm glad you are confident in your abilities, but as the saying goes there is always someone better and faster.

If this had taken place at my house it would have looked like this;

Guy with gun shows up and asks me to turn the music down. I say "no problem sir, have a nice night" Then he goes home.

I go inside, turn the music down and call the police, crack another beer and watch the show as the Leo's arrest said neighbor.

After all, if I'm drinking my guns are locked up so I wouldn't be able to draw it anyway.

Edit: No capitulating, no begging, and nobody dies. Ymmv

I made the leap in logic that he was under the influence of something because it is not rational to handle a loud noise complaint by brandishing a weapon.

I'm not saying that these guys handled it the way I would. If I'm drinking I'm not wearing a pistol, but if someone comes over to my house acting like an a-hole and wearing guns I'm putting down the beer, arming up and waiting for the cops to pay him a visit. If he comes back before the cops do (like he did) it'll be looking down a barrel of something superior to what he has.

[Mr. Brooks]

I made the leap in logic that he was under the influence of something because it is not rational to handle a loud noise complaint by brandishing a weapon.

You are right, it's not rational. I figure he was simply a hotheaded idiot who thought that he could intimidate people because he had a gun.

I'm not saying that these guys handled it the way I would. If I'm drinking I'm not wearing a pistol, but if someone comes over to my house acting like an a-hole and wearing guns I'm putting down the beer, arming up and waiting for the cops to pay him a visit. If he comes back before the cops do (like he did) it'll be looking down a barrel of something superior to what he has.

I agree 100% with the above. And it's exactly what I've been trying to say. Poorly, apparently.

[gregintenn]

Nope. I believe that in my heart. You can’t kill someone over a fight you started. You take your azz whipping and learn to either keep your mouth shut, or call the Police and let them deal with it. You don’t get to murder someone when you figure out you have bitten off more than you can chew.

And I’m really surprised you don’t agree with me on this.

I don't say this very often, but I agree with DaveTN here. I can't quote a law, but common sense would tell you that something about harrassing another person, and the shooting them when they get pizzed off isn't right.

[TripleDigitRide]

Sound like he was just asking them to quiet down. Is that really a crime? Anyone who's willing to escalate a confrontation with a gun-toting man deserves to be shot.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch using Tapatalk 2

[jtmaze]

At my house there is a hallway leading to each door. Whatever door they(armed person) are approaching, I will be at the end of that hallway with wife and kids in a far room(several walls to go through) behind me. I will be on phone with 911 hoping no one is stupid enough to come thur that door. I will always try and retreat if possible.

JTM

Sent from my iPhone

[JayC]

Same thing they should say in Florida; SYG doesn’t apply to someone that started the confrontation.

No offense, but starting a confrontation in and of itself should have no bearing on self defense... Starting a physical altercation or making verbal threats should... Here is a perfect example:

You're coming home from your next door neighbor's house, and you see somebody messing with your wife's car parked on the side of the street.... you approach and start yelling, "hey what are you doing?? get away from that car! I'm calling the police", and you start to approach the car, as you do the man turns and has a weapon in his hand, and he is within 20 feet of you.

Clearly SYG should apply, you have a bad guy breaking into your property, he's armed, and within melee striking distance... that is a pretty black and white SYG case... But in your mind since you started the verbal confrontation it's not?

Getting in a shouting match has (and should) have nothing to do with SYG... the aggressor is the first person to use, or threaten to use violence illegally.

I can tell you examples all day long that are clear cut self defense under SYG, yet the personal claiming self defense started the 'confrontation', yet did so legally.

[f3joel]

Premeditated murder

[TMF]

No offense, but starting a confrontation in and of itself should have no bearing on self defense... Starting a physical altercation or making verbal threats should... Here is a perfect example:

He did far more than verbally confront. He was brandishing a weapon while trespassing on the victim's property.

Beyond that I would say that intent is everything. Confronting someone who is trespassing on your property is reasonable behavior. You would be hard pressed to find 12 jurors to all agree that it isn't. Going over to someone else's property, brandishing a weapon and then refusing to leave is not. I bet you can find 12 jurors that agree on that. What was the intent of the suspect? Was it to get the music turned down? If so, why would he go over there and pull his weapon out? Why not just say turn the music down or I'll call the police? Why stick around and continue? Obviously at this point he isn't going to achieve his original goals so what is the intent of this man? His intent is clear in his words to 911. Using all the buzzwords to show that he is about to shoot someone in self defense. He intended to agitate that man so he could shoot him. That was his INTENT. If it wasn't he would have left.

He is going to be convicted. No doubt. I hope he does. This is not what self defense laws and SYG is about. This is about a hothead that wanted to kill his neighbor and worked damn hard to construct a situation where he thought he could. That is premeditation.

No matter what folks think the law is, when you do something like this you'll be answering for it. Even if you don't get convicted your life will be ruined. Intent is everything.

[DaveTN]

No offense, but starting a confrontation in and of itself should have no bearing on self defense... Starting a physical altercation or making verbal threats should... Here is a perfect example:

You're coming home from your next door neighbor's house, and you see somebody messing with your wife's car parked on the side of the street.... you approach and start yelling, "hey what are you doing?? get away from that car! I'm calling the police", and you start to approach the car, as you do the man turns and has a weapon in his hand, and he is within 20 feet of you.

Clearly SYG should apply, you have a bad guy breaking into your property, he's armed, and within melee striking distance... that is a pretty black and white SYG case... But in your mind since you started the verbal confrontation it's not?

Getting in a shouting match has (and should) have nothing to do with SYG... the aggressor is the first person to use, or threaten to use violence illegally.

I can tell you examples all day long that are clear cut self defense under SYG, yet the personal claiming self defense started the 'confrontation', yet did so legally.

How can you draw any kind of parallel between a person committing a felony and then pulling on gun on you to an innocent kid walking down the street being chased down and murdered? In your scenario you didn’t start the altercation that led to the justification for the use of deadly force, the criminal did when he made the decision to break into your wife’s car, and then pointing a gun at you.

My apologies if I wasn’t clear.

With all due respect; start posting your examples of where the shooter picked an innocent person walking down the street, started a confrontation, killed them, and a court ruled they were justified. I would imagine Zimmerman’s attorneys are looking for those cases also.

[DaveTN]

His intent is clear in his words to 911. Using all the buzzwords to show that he is about to shoot someone in self defense. He intended to agitate that man so he could shoot him. That was his INTENT. If it wasn't he would have left.

Also his use of those “buzz words†shows that he had a clear mind and knew what he was going to do. (Intent & State of Mind)

No matter what folks think the law is, when you do something like this you'll be answering for it. Even if you don't get convicted your life will be ruined. Intent is everything.

These cases are showing that SYG laws do not create free fire zones. Stand Your Ground and No Duty to Retreat laws were enacted to protect innocent victims; not justify murder.

Edited June 10, 2012 by DaveTN

[Mr. Brooks]

an innocent kid walking down the street being chased down and murdered?

You forgot stalking.

[mikegideon]

Nope. I believe that in my heart. You can’t kill someone over a fight you started. You take your azz whipping and learn to either keep your mouth shut, or call the Police and let them deal with it. You don’t get to murder someone when you figure out you have bitten off more than you can chew.

And I’m really surprised you don’t agree with me on this.

I DO agree with you on that, with limits. I have a different mental picture of what happened, and we're BOTH speculating. I don't think anybody deserves an ass whipping for asking a question. I also think that an ass whipping becomes something else when it gets life threatening.

Edited June 10, 2012 by mikegideon

[mikegideon]

You forgot stalking.

[TMF]

These cases are showing that SYG laws do not create free fire zones. Stand Your Ground and No Duty to Retreat laws were enacted to protect innocent victims; not justify murder.

Exactly. This is why folks that carry should pay close attention to these types of stories. I think that some folks misinterpret the law to the point of believing that somehow "castle doctrine" and "SYG" are magic wands that will prevent charges in the event of a shoot. Those laws should unless you're up to no good or have ill intent.

I think it's good that this guy is getting tried and that it's getting media exposure to show that SYG is not a license to murder while at the same time showing irresponsible gun carriers that you can't do stuff like this.

Edited June 10, 2012 by TMF 18B

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Also his use of those “buzz words†shows that he had a clear mind and knew what he was going to do. (Intent & State of Mind)

These cases are showing that SYG laws do not create free fire zones. Stand Your Ground and No Duty to Retreat laws were enacted to protect innocent victims; not justify murder.

Who said they created a free fire zone? SYG has nothing tto do with that.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TMF]

Who said they created a free fire zone? SYG has nothing tto do with that.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Libtards say so. This case should be proof that folks are still accountable for wrongdoing and can't successfully invoke SYG when committing murder.

[DaveTN]

I DO agree with you on that, with limits. I have a different mental picture of what happened, and we're BOTH speculating. I don't think anybody deserves an ass whipping for asking a question. I also think that an ass whipping becomes something else when it gets life threatening.

I do to, but he didn’t take an azz whipping. What, the cut on the back of his head? I’ve cut myself worse shaving (Not on the back of my head though).

I’m trying not to speculate; I’m looking at the facts that are not in dispute, and those facts show that Zimmerman started a confrontation that was not legally justified.

Did Martian jump him and start beating his azz? We don’t know. The only other witness to this is dead.

But what if he did? What if Martin saw the gun and was scared to death? Fight or flight. Maybe he thought he would get shot in the back if he ran and so he STOOD HIS GROUND AND FOUGHT. His hands were the only weapon he had, and that cost him his life because he was being pursued by a man who took out a gun a shot him to death.

Mike I’m also not trying to argue with you or trying to disrespect you, I respect your opinion; I’m simply having a discussion.

[mikegideon]

Exactly. This is why folks that carry should pay close attention to these types of stories. I think that some folks misinterpret the law to the point of believing that somehow "castle doctrine" and "SYG" are magic wands that will prevent charges in the event of a shoot. Those laws should unless you're up to no good or have ill intent.

I think it's good that this guy is getting tried and that it's getting media exposure to show that SYG is not a license to murder while at the same time showing irresponsible gun carriers that you can't do stuff like this.

That guy is an idiot. You're right. I just wish this "teaching moment" didn't incude fuel for bedwetter hysteria.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Libtards say so. This case should be proof that folks are still accountable for wrongdoing and can't successfully invoke SYG when committing murder.

Screw the libtards. I think we all knew that around

here.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mikegideon]

I do to, but he didn’t take an azz whipping. What, the cut on the back of his head? I’ve cut myself worse shaving (Not on the back of my head though).

I’m trying not to speculate; I’m looking at the facts that are not in dispute, and those facts show that Zimmerman started a confrontation that was not legally justified.

Did Martian jump him and start beating his azz? We don’t know. The only other witness to this is dead.

But what if he did? What if Martin saw the gun and was scared to death? Fight or flight. Maybe he thought he would get shot in the back if he ran and so he STOOD HIS GROUND AND FOUGHT. His hands were the only weapon he had, and that cost him his life because he was being pursued by a man who took out a gun a shot him to death.

Mike I’m also not trying to argue with you or trying to disrespect you, I respect your opinion; I’m simply having a discussion.

I know it's just a discussion. Again, we both have our mental picture. Since allowing your gun to show at all in Florida is illegal, those folks are pretty good at hiding them. My money says that Trayvon never knew it was there until he <maybe> felt it after the fight started. It was a PF-9... one click above a mouse gun.

I don't agree that what we absolutely know about Zimmerman's action's, there was justification for a violent confrontation. I do believe you made your mind up pretty early on, and that you're ignoring some of the information because of it.

Arizona Iced Tea (a lie... was actually Arizona Watemelon Juice drink) and Skittles add to the innocent 12 year old image until you realize that they're common ingredients in a drug cocktail. Not dragging Trayvon's virgin image thru the mud. Just stating facts that show the makup of that guy. They're also facts that punch big holes in your image of the story.

No disrepect to you either. I would feel much better if you weren't wrong about the whole thing

Edited June 10, 2012 by mikegideon

[Mr. Brooks]

Dave, if you want an case of what not to do as a gun owner this case in Tx is a good example. (You know, the one this thread was supposed to be about until you derailed it. )

The Florida case simply isn't that clear cut, if it were we would never be having this discussion.

Edited June 10, 2012 by Mr. Brooks

[bubbiesdad]

How can you draw any kind of parallel between a person committing a felony and then pulling on gun on you to an innocent kid walking down the street being chased down and murdered? In your scenario you didn’t start the altercation that led to the justification for the use of deadly force, the criminal did when he made the decision to break into your wife’s car, and then pointing a gun at you.

My apologies if I wasn’t clear.

With all due respect; start posting your examples of where the shooter picked an innocent person walking down the street, started a confrontation, killed them, and a court ruled they were justified. I would imagine Zimmerman’s attorneys are looking for those cases also.

But what about?...... wait , I forgot that you were there.

[DaveTN]

Dave, if you want an case of what not to do as a gun owner this case in Tx is a good example. (You know, the one this thread was supposed to be about until you derailed it. )

The Florida case simply isn't that clear cut, if it were we would never be having this discussion.

I apologize if I derailed the thread. TMF 18B used Zimmerman’s name and made reference to the Florida case when he started the thread, so I thought it would be okay.

[DaveTN]

But what about?...... wait , I forgot that you were there.

Nope, I wasn’t there anymore than anyone else. Like everyone else I have made decisions based on what I have read in media accounts that were biased both ways.

I think Zimmerman deserves a fair trial, I don’t agree that the state revoked his bail, I think the state is responsible for his safety while in custody, and I am appalled that both the state and the Feds refused to act when outright criminal threats were made against his life. However… the cops wanted to arrest him when they first had him, they ask for an arrest warrant and it was refused by the DA. The Governor has seen fit to sit that DA in the corner and call one in that can handle the case. A crime was committed and the victim and his family deserve a trial. I know very well we don’t have a justice system, but I hold out hope that justice is served in this case.

I know my opinion on this case is not popular on this forum, but I can’t help from join in on the discussion. I am simply discussing the case as I see it; I respect the opinions of others and hope no one takes my comments as a personal attack, they certainly are not meant that way.