Or join the army.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Florida gun owner kills teenager who challenged him to fistfight; is acquitted
- Thread starter richiek
- Start date
- Status
Or join the army.
miscellaneous
Banned
Except that guy was arrested, charged, and found guilty, so I'm not altogether sure what you're talking about there.
Hari Seldon
Member
The article seems to be written to stir up as much controversy as possible. Man vs teenager lololol.
Don't fight at all? People seem to forget you could easily be killed in a fist fight.
block tower
Member
so in Florida are you just able to shoot someone and then make up an excuse as to why with "Stand Your Ground"? im being serious, it sounds like you can commit murder and follow it up with a reasonable cause and youll be fine.
Mr Fahrenheit
Member
If some angry guy who has a reputation for being exceptionally good at beat downs is standing in front of my house threatening me and coming over to me yelling about fighting me then... Well... No.
I'm not seeing the controversy on this one.
I'm not seeing the controversy on this one.
Technically, yes. The law needs a re-write to prevent abuse like this. The theory is sound, but the law was poorly written.
block tower
Member
yea boxers and mixed martial artists die all the time. /s
block tower
Member
yea because its seems if anyone wanted to kill you they could and just follow it up with "i felt threatened..". in all honesty the victims family could probably go over and kill the shooter and make up an excuse, they could easily carry out revenge under the law lol.
you're not living in the wild west man call the cops.
Mr Fahrenheit
Member
That really isn't how it is. People trying to use SYG in their defense are probably getting put away everyday. It's not the free murder card the media tries to sell it as. There are definite loopholes that need immediate fixing though so it absolutely can never be used that way.
Did the article not say the guy started to come at him? What do you think average response time is? Certainly less than it would take some to walk across your lawn and beat the shit out of you. That's hardly me walking into the saloon with my six gun and taking down all the baddies in there before they even stood up.
I seriously doubt that would fly. Any prosecutor worth his salt would tear through the defense.
But the law seriously needs an entrapment clause stating the if the shooting victim was provoked at the time of the shooting, the law doesn't count. Then situations like this (and possibly the Martin fiasco) wouldn't happen.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
"Stand Your Ground" doesn't really do anything in this regard. Every state recognizes a killing as justified if the killer reasonably believed lethal force was necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily injury (though they may phrase the test somewhat differently).
What is interesting about this case is that the killer hasn't been acquitted. Instead, he was able to prove to a judge's satisfaction that he acted in self defense. As a consequence, the killer was granted immunity from prosecution, and won't have to face a trial (unless the state is successful on appeal).
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
"A Florida jury convicted a white, middle-aged man on Saturday of three counts of attempted murder for opening fire on a car of black teenagers during an argument over loud rap music, but could not reach a verdict on a murder charge for the killing of a 17-year-old in the car."
The guy did not get charged for murder.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Yeah that had a couple threads on here
If boxers didn't wear gloves I'm sure some fights would lead to death. You don't see the difference between two people fighting in the street and a professional match?
block tower
Member
no, because the average boxer and mma fighter has a far more powerful punch than the average drunk asshole beating each other up in a parking lot. so if anything the gloves are there to reduce the bleeding and or damage to the fighters hands, it probably decreases very little of the actual force the fighters are putting behind the punch.
Mr Fahrenheit
Member
Not to mention loads have boxers have died from injuries sustained in matches.
EASTC0AST_GH05T
Member
After seeing the vid the Karatae kid seemed like the true antagonizer as the guy in the red shirt attempted to go in the house but kept getting baited and insulted by the karatae kid. He also ignored the fact that the guy had a gun on his property in clear sight and continued to ask for 1 on 1 fight.... crazy.
what is he gonna karate chop your front door down? stay in your house and call the cops.
Souldestroyer Reborn
Banned
Yep I agree.
The guy didn't deserve to die, but he was the aggressor and when faced with a gun he continued to come forward.
However.....
The fact that the shooter opened his gate to "entice" the victim possibly with his mind made up that he was going to shoot him plants a seed of doubt in my mind....
Yoda
Member
Threatening someone with physical force is against the law and you do not have the same rights at that very instant as someone who isn't threatening someone with physical force. However Kinsey certainly had a decent window of opportunity to de-escalate the situation, jumping to deadly force when it isn't the only available option seems like a stretch to me. I don't know where you would draw the line though as of when you are permitted to use deadly force after a threat to your well being has been made. Certainly he shouldn't have to wait to be getting hit to defend himself.
Of course not.
From what I gather, this is not exactly true. Just google "warning shots prohibited".
I am not from the USA. Often I wanted to migrate there, but there are at least 3 big things keeping me from it. Well, maybe four, but with the the fourth one I think I could easily battle with. I will not give all of these reasons, since I do not want to derail the thread, but one of them is exactly the overabundance of guns and the related police aggression.
Wickerbasket
Member
You'd kill him? For being an asshole to you?
What the fuck ever happened to de-escalation? Go in the house, call the cops.
You aren't meant to be judge, jury and executioner.
Well, I think the line could be drawn that if he could call his friend to bring him a hand cannon that he could have called the cops.
AND, he could have left his gate closed and at least made the pretense of the person forcing is way onto the property instead of admittedly setting him up to be gunned down.
I must be oddly foreign even though I do not feel foreign because every time I see this "baited and insulted" used as if it is something tangible preventing him from going into the house or something, it must mean something different than what I think it means.
Because words, where I come from and where my parents and where their parents came from (so that is a good spread of area) have never been able to prevent someone from doing a damned thing.
EASTC0AST_GH05T
Member
We all know the shooter could have handeled the situation better but where he is from he would have been called weak, scared and a snitch if he went in the house to call the cops. Me personally I would have walked away, the shooter choose to stay and ultimately came to the decision that he was going to shoot the aggressive karatae kid.
The difference is that Our (Minnesotan here) jury convicted him, whereas in Florida, it seems to be okay for a gun owner to kill regardless of how irresponsibly or maliciously they act (see: this case, George Zimmerman, etc).
It's your responsibility to not turn to violence as a first course of action. The law should pardon you for using deadly force after being placed in a dangerous situation. It should not protect you from criminal liability for deliberately seeking, creating, and/or contributing to a dangerous situation under the pretense of needing to use deadly force to protect yourself. You cannot protect yourself from harm when you seek to entice others to harm you, because in doing so, you seek to inflict harm upon others, not to protect yourself from harm by others.
Stand your ground is a problematic law.
That said, don't threaten to kill people.
This seems like a justified kill. A male threatened to kill someone, had the capability to do so, was aggressive and threatening. Seems pretty open and shut, especially with "stand your ground". Even without the law, has it gone to court he'd probably have been acquitted on self defense grounds.
That said, don't threaten to kill people.
This seems like a justified kill. A male threatened to kill someone, had the capability to do so, was aggressive and threatening. Seems pretty open and shut, especially with "stand your ground". Even without the law, has it gone to court he'd probably have been acquitted on self defense grounds.
I would never attack someone physically. If someone wants to attack me physically, you can bet I don't care what happens to them. Beating people up isn't okay. Defending yourself is.
In SC and I'm assuming most other states it has to be a fear that's rational to average people. This is tested in court. You can't gun down a clown just because you are terrified of them.
Japanmanx3
Member
Carnby
Member
If those words are a threat, absolutely it is justified.
Yeah but it's a jury. A group of people. It's not that hard to make something a rational fear to a group of people.
I think the shooter was in the wrong. The bit about him opening the gate to entice the other guy makes it clear to me that he was just looking for an excuse to kill him.
But I can't help but laugh at the people trying to argue that the prospect of getting your ass beat by a trained martial artist in a fit of rage is no big deal.
But I can't help but laugh at the people trying to argue that the prospect of getting your ass beat by a trained martial artist in a fit of rage is no big deal.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked