Florida Man Stands His Ground

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

nd, honestly, if he hits you, still not justification to kill him, IMO. Run away and call the cops. The only time a gun is the correct response is when they are actively trying to kill you.

You really should study up on the law before you make such incorrect statements.

EDIT: I should elaborate. The general statement is reasonable fear of imminent 1) death or grievous injury (most jurisdictions); 2) stop the commission of a major crime (usually listed-like rape, major assault); 3) sumbitch was messing your truck at night (Texas, seriously); 4) he needed killin (the so called "wife defense" as told to me by my wife).

greivous harm, or whatever harm standard used in the jurisdiction also follows to the victim - akin to the eggshell rule. As an older victim could indeed be killed or severely harmed you punch an old guy at your own risk bucky.

"Don't mess with old guys. They are too tired to fight and might just kill you instead."
-Some old guy.

**Howard A Treesong**

Freddy Kruger wrote:
More to the question, why the feth would you take a gun to a movie theater? Seems like yet another case of a person who thinks using a gun first rather than defusing the situation like any sane person would usage best course of action.

If Thomas Wayne took a gun to the theatre we'd not have the Batman.

**Vaktathi**

People take weapons all sorts of places. For some people, carrying a firearm is no different than carrying a phone or shoes.

That said, not terribly sympathetic towards the shooter in tbis case, from the information provided, I hope he gets the book thrown at him.

**Co'tor Shas**

CptJake wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
CptJake wrote:
It seems a bit lazy to believe he escalated and shot the guy for throwing popcorn.

Heck, at a minimum the 'throwing popcorn' actually was the texter standing up to face the shooter, reaching into the shooter's lap grabbing his popcorn then reaching back towards the shooters face to throw the popcorn into it. Once you start coming over the seat and grabbing/throwing into someones face that person very well could become worried about being physically harmed.

To the point of blowing him away however, feth no. You'll get hit with some popcorn, boo-hoo.

And, honestly, if he hits you, still not justification to kill him, IMO. Run away and call the cops. The only time a gun is the correct response is when they are actively trying to kill you.

There was no justification for this whatsoever, and this fether should be in jail for a long time, and never allowed to own a gun ever again.

If a guy comes over his seat to beat you senseless, and you are sitting in a movie theater seat, it is a bit difficult to 'run away and call the cops'. And frankly, the whole point of Stand Your Ground laws is you have NO obligation to run away. Period. If he hits you you have no obligation to assume he will only hit you once or twice and does not intend to really hurt you.

You do have a moral obligation to not kill people however. Especially if all he did was throw fething popcorn in the guy's face.
Stand you ground laws are moronic, and only result in more people dying to BS like this. Defend yourself, sure, but don't act like you're a cowboy in an old western. You can take a little humliation without committing murder.

The question the judge/jury are looking at is did the shooter have a legitimate fear of being beaten? That is it. If he did, the law should protect him. If not, he will go to trial for murder.

And it's pretty obvious he didn't. What you are saying basically amount to the idea that if I get angry and get in someone's face, it should be legal for them to shoot me. And that way lies madness.

You're dislike of guns and belief folks should not have the right to defend themselves have no bearing on the legal issue being looked at.

And those are two things that I did not say anything about. I have no dislike of guns (i never mentioned anything of the sort, nor did I blame this one guns, if this PoS had a knife it probably would have ended up about the same, considering his reaction).

Nor do I think people are not allowed to defend themselves. I didn't say that either. What I said, is that the first response should be to back down, to leave, to get out of the situation, and let people who are trained to deal with this gak, deal with it. And if escape is no an option, that force should be met with equal force, if they aren't coming at you with a knife or something, then don't fething shoot them. If they aren't trying to kill you, don't kill them. It's really fething simple.

**jmurph**

Don't forget, this is the land about crying that everyone is getting too wimpy, participation badges, etc. then shooting someone because they *might* hit you.

Because a fist blow might "cave your face in."

Not exactly John Wayne material, eh?

**Co'tor Shas**

Frazzled wrote:
nd, honestly, if he hits you, still not justification to kill him, IMO. Run away and call the cops. The only time a gun is the correct response is when they are actively trying to kill you.

You really should study up on the law before you make such incorrect statements.

I'm sorry Frazz, where did I say I was talking about law again?

**whembly**

jmurph wrote:
Don't forget, this is the land about crying that everyone is getting too wimpy, participation badges, etc. then shooting someone because they *might* hit you.

Because a fist blow might "cave your face in."

Not exactly John Wayne material, eh?

People do die by beatings... if I remember right, something in the tune of 700-800 people per year.

**Prestor Jon**

jmurph wrote:
Don't forget, this is the land about crying that everyone is getting too wimpy, participation badges, etc. then shooting someone because they *might* hit you.

Because a fist blow might "cave your face in."

Not exactly John Wayne material, eh?

That definition of self defense has been in place for a very long time. It's never been the case in the US that you have to wait for somebody to hit you to defend yourself. And you're ignoring the proper escalation of force. You can defend yourself if you have a reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm but not all imminent threats require a lethal response. You can throw the first punch and still rightly claim you acted in self defense. You can fire the first shot and rightly claim you acted in self defense but the circumstances warranting firing a shot would be different than the ones that warranted a punch being thrown.

**Frazzled**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
nd, honestly, if he hits you, still not justification to kill him, IMO. Run away and call the cops. The only time a gun is the correct response is when they are actively trying to kill you.

You really should study up on the law before you make such incorrect statements.

I'm sorry Frazz, where did I say I was talking about law again?

"cause you're not freaking old? Its very justified. Also if you touch my wife or kids, or some sumbitch messes with my truck at night (I don't have truck), or that TexMex is bad (more of a mercy shot there).

**Co'tor Shas**

Frazzled wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
nd, honestly, if he hits you, still not justification to kill him, IMO. Run away and call the cops. The only time a gun is the correct response is when they are actively trying to kill you.

You really should study up on the law before you make such incorrect statements.

I'm sorry Frazz, where did I say I was talking about law again?

"cause you're not freaking old? Its very justified. Also if you touch my wife or kids, or some sumbitch messes with my truck at night (I don't have truck), or that TexMex is bad (more of a mercy shot there).

I'm not exactly sure what you just said....

**AllSeeingSkink**

CptJake wrote:
The question the judge/jury are looking at is did the shooter have a legitimate fear of being beaten? That is it.

Even if he instigated and escalated the situation himself?

So if I move to Florida, start picking on people I don't like and when I get scared they're going to beat me so I blow them away I'll be protected by the law? Nice.

**Frazzled**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
nd, honestly, if he hits you, still not justification to kill him, IMO. Run away and call the cops. The only time a gun is the correct response is when they are actively trying to kill you.

You really should study up on the law before you make such incorrect statements.

I'm sorry Frazz, where did I say I was talking about law again?

"cause you're not freaking old? Its very justified. Also if you touch my wife or kids, or some sumbitch messes with my truck at night (I don't have truck), or that TexMex is bad (more of a mercy shot there).

I'm not exactly sure what you just said....

I said its morally justifiable for an old guy to blow away someone illegally physically attacking him.* That however doesn't appear to be what is happening here.

*Also that people who don't like TexMex are undoubtedly cat people and thus not really human.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
CptJake wrote:
The question the judge/jury are looking at is did the shooter have a legitimate fear of being beaten? That is it.
Even if he instigated and escalated the situation himself?

So if I move to Florida, start picking on people I don't like and when I get scared they're going to beat me so I blow them away I'll be protected by the law? Nice.

No thats not correct. Generally (translation-Florida? Who knows) one cannot be engaged in a criminal activity or generally escalating the situation like that.

**Co'tor Shas**

Frazzled wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
nd, honestly, if he hits you, still not justification to kill him, IMO. Run away and call the cops. The only time a gun is the correct response is when they are actively trying to kill you.

You really should study up on the law before you make such incorrect statements.

I'm sorry Frazz, where did I say I was talking about law again?

"cause you're not freaking old? Its very justified. Also if you touch my wife or kids, or some sumbitch messes with my truck at night (I don't have truck), or that TexMex is bad (more of a mercy shot there).

I'm not exactly sure what you just said....

I said its morally justifiable for an old guy to blow away someone illegally physically attacking him.* That however doesn't appear to be what is happening here.

*Also that people who don't like TexMex are undoubtedly cat people and thus not really human.

Which I vehemently disagree with. Unless you have a reasonable belief that they are trying to kill you, you don't kill them. Again, you aren't some cowboy from a John Wayne movie.

**whembly**

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
CptJake wrote:
The question the judge/jury are looking at is did the shooter have a legitimate fear of being beaten? That is it.
Even if he instigated and escalated the situation himself?

So if I move to Florida, start picking on people I don't like and when I get scared they're going to beat me so I blow them away I'll be protected by the law? Nice.

Good luck getting a judge/jury to believe you.

**slip**

He shot the mother too. He can claim he perceived her to be a threat all he wants, but it just makes me perceive him to be a coward.

**Frazzled**

Co'tor Shas wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
nd, honestly, if he hits you, still not justification to kill him, IMO. Run away and call the cops. The only time a gun is the correct response is when they are actively trying to kill you.

You really should study up on the law before you make such incorrect statements.

I'm sorry Frazz, where did I say I was talking about law again?

"cause you're not freaking old? Its very justified. Also if you touch my wife or kids, or some sumbitch messes with my truck at night (I don't have truck), or that TexMex is bad (more of a mercy shot there).

I'm not exactly sure what you just said....

I said its morally justifiable for an old guy to blow away someone illegally physically attacking him.* That however doesn't appear to be what is happening here.

*Also that people who don't like TexMex are undoubtedly cat people and thus not really human.

Which I vehemently disagree with. Unless you have a reasonable belief that they are trying to kill you, you don't kill them. Again, you aren't some cowboy from a John Wayne movie.

I'm also not some 20 year idiot who thinks fistfights are cool and don't lead to traumatic brain injury (because I have the Xrays to show it).
Moral of the story don't attack an old guy. Don't attack anyone. Its the moral thing, its the legal thing.

**AllSeeingSkink**

whembly wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
CptJake wrote:
The question the judge/jury are looking at is did the shooter have a legitimate fear of being beaten? That is it.
Even if he instigated and escalated the situation himself?

So if I move to Florida, start picking on people I don't like and when I get scared they're going to beat me so I blow them away I'll be protected by the law? Nice.

Good luck getting a judge/jury to believe you.

Yeah well it'd be absurd.... though not actually that far from what this guy did (at least on the surface it seems that way). It seems a lot like the old dude did damned near everything possible to provoke a response, panicked and shot the guy.

From the video it looks like the texter was further away from the old guy when he got shot than when he threw the popcorn, so it doesn't even seem like the texter was about to jump over the seat to beat on him.

**Co'tor Shas**

Frazzled wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
Frazzled wrote:
nd, honestly, if he hits you, still not justification to kill him, IMO. Run away and call the cops. The only time a gun is the correct response is when they are actively trying to kill you.

You really should study up on the law before you make such incorrect statements.

I'm sorry Frazz, where did I say I was talking about law again?

"cause you're not freaking old? Its very justified. Also if you touch my wife or kids, or some sumbitch messes with my truck at night (I don't have truck), or that TexMex is bad (more of a mercy shot there).

I'm not exactly sure what you just said....

I said its morally justifiable for an old guy to blow away someone illegally physically attacking him.* That however doesn't appear to be what is happening here.

*Also that people who don't like TexMex are undoubtedly cat people and thus not really human.

Which I vehemently disagree with. Unless you have a reasonable belief that they are trying to kill you, you don't kill them. Again, you aren't some cowboy from a John Wayne movie.

I'm also not some 20 year idiot who thinks fistfights are cool and don't lead to traumatic brain injury (because I have the Xrays to show it).
Moral of the story don't attack an old guy. Don't attack anyone. Its the moral thing, its the legal thing.

And I don't think fistfights are cool either, violence against those who are not violent is repugnant, but neither is killing people. That's the point.

**Frazzled**

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
whembly wrote:
AllSeeingSkink wrote:
CptJake wrote:
The question the judge/jury are looking at is did the shooter have a legitimate fear of being beaten? That is it.
Even if he instigated and escalated the situation himself?

So if I move to Florida, start picking on people I don't like and when I get scared they're going to beat me so I blow them away I'll be protected by the law? Nice.

Good luck getting a judge/jury to believe you.
Yeah well it'd be absurd.... though not actually that far from what this guy did (at least on the surface it seems that way). It seems a lot like the old dude did damned near everything possible to provoke a response, panicked and shot the guy.

Evidence supports your view and he will likely go to jail (ok anywhere outside Florida, or New Mexico where they just settle issue with Thunderdome).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

And I don't think fistfights are cool either, violence against those who are not violent is repugnant, but neither is killing people. That's the point.

Don't commit a crime then whine about the outcome. If you attack an old man you deserve what you get.

**jmurph**

Prestor Jon wrote:
jmurph wrote:
Don't forget, this is the land about crying that everyone is getting too wimpy, participation badges, etc. then shooting someone because they *might* hit you.

Because a fist blow might "cave your face in."

Not exactly John Wayne material, eh?

That definition of self defense has been in place for a very long time. It's never been the case in the US that you have to wait for somebody to hit you to defend yourself. And you're ignoring the proper escalation of force. You can defend yourself if you have a reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm but not all imminent threats require a lethal response. You can throw the first punch and still rightly claim you acted in self defense. You can fire the first shot and rightly claim you acted in self defense but the circumstances warranting firing a shot would be different than the ones that warranted a punch being thrown.

I am well acquainted with self defense doctrine. That wasn't my point. My point was that the same crowd who gets all up in arms about the "feminization" of America and how current generations are pretty much giant babies seem to jump to justify the use of lethal force at the slightest provocation. In this thread, there have been several posts pointing out how because he was old it's okay to blow his brains if he thought the guy might smack him. Justifying the shoot before they ever saw the evidence. And, in Florida, I am sure it wouldn't be unlikely to get jurors who feel exactly that way.

Here, the video looks like the deceased grabbed the defendant's popcorn and through it at him, at which point the Defendant immediately shot the deceased and his wife. Who knows how a jury might see it.

**Frazzled**

I'm sorry if you don't like how law and stare decisis works and that attacking an old guy is legally indefensible. I suggest you move to NYC where the the right of self defense is effectively nonexistent and old picked can be picked on by predators much more easily.

**BrotherGecko**

CptJake wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
CptJake wrote:
It seems a bit lazy to believe he escalated and shot the guy for throwing popcorn.

Heck, at a minimum the 'throwing popcorn' actually was the texter standing up to face the shooter, reaching into the shooter's lap grabbing his popcorn then reaching back towards the shooters face to throw the popcorn into it. Once you start coming over the seat and grabbing/throwing into someones face that person very well could become worried about being physically harmed.

To the point of blowing him away however, feth no. You'll get hit with some popcorn, boo-hoo.

And, honestly, if he hits you, still not justification to kill him, IMO. Run away and call the cops. The only time a gun is the correct response is when they are actively trying to kill you.

There was no justification for this whatsoever, and this fether should be in jail for a long time, and never allowed to own a gun ever again.

If a guy comes over his seat to beat you senseless, and you are sitting in a movie theater seat, it is a bit difficult to 'run away and call the cops'. And frankly, the whole point of Stand Your Ground laws is you have NO obligation to run away. Period. If he hits you you have no obligation to assume he will only hit you once or twice and does not intend to really hurt you.

The question the judge/jury are looking at is did the shooter have a legitimate fear of being beaten? That is it. If he did, the law should protect him. If not, he will go to trial for murder. You're dislike of guns and belief folks should not have the right to defend themselves have no bearing on the legal issue being looked at.

Your defense of this is actually delegitimizing the rationale for a conceal and carry. I get you want to protect the right but some standard has to be in place beyond what the shooter "felt" in the moment. Which let us honestly admit, can be retroactively applied by the shooter and you seemingly will just assume they told the truth.

The man wasn't going to get beaten to death in a movie theater we can throw that arguement right out.

**slip**

Frazzled wrote:

Don't commit a crime then whine about the outcome. If you attack an old man you deserve what you get.

I used to work at a theater. Theater policy is always to warn the text immediately upon receiving a complaint. That old man got into an argument with a guy then went to his car to get his gun, came back, and shot him. There was no threat, and it's only through extravagant expense to the gun lobby that people like that even have chance to walk free.

I'm Canadian, and don't care about making any American legal arguments but the perception that guns keep you safe really is considered laughable here, and we're cowboy as hell.

http://gawker.com/5932846/american-becomes-laughingstock-of-canada-after-letter-to-editor-lamenting-lack-of-handgun-during-mild-confrontation wrote:

Walt Wawra, a police officer from Kalamazoo, Michigan, was vacationing in Calgary, Alberta, with his wife Debbie when he encountered a situation that made him reach for his off-duty handgun.

But the weapon wasn't there because he had been told he has "no need to carry one in Canada." So he fired a letter to the Calgary Herald instead to complain about his inability to protect his family from the city's riff raff.

Case in point: While strolling through Calgary's bucolic Nose Hill Park, Wawra and his wife were suddenly confronted by two men who stepped in their path and, "in a very aggressive tone," demanded to know if the couple had "been to the Stampede yet" (the city's annual rodeo, which celebrated its centennial this year).

"We ignored them," Wawra writes, but "the two moved closer, repeating: 'Hey, you been to the Stampede yet?'"

That's when the 20-year police force vet got angry and "quickly moved between these two and my wife, replying, 'Gentle-men, I have no need to talk with you, goodbye.'" Walt and Debbie then continued on their way, leaving the Stampede Brothers behind looking "bewildered."

But what if they had done more than simply ask the same question twice and then move on? What then? Wawra reflects and concludes:

I speculate they did not have good intentions when they approached in such an aggressive, disrespectful and menacing manner. I thank the Lord Jesus Christ they did not pull a weapon of some sort, but rather concluded it was in their best interest to leave us alone.

Would we not expect a uniformed officer to pull his or her weapon to intercede in a life-or-death encounter to protect self, or another? Why then should the expectation be lower for a citizen of Canada or a visitor? Wait, I know - it's because in Canada, only the criminals and the police carry handguns.
The Calgary Herald confirmed that Wawra's letter is not a hoax and was in fact written for real by "a real person."

Canadians have taken to responding directly to Wawra's concerns using the Twitter hashtag #NoseHillGentlemen.

"Hey Walt. The 2 men approached you because in #Canada we're friendly to each other," wrote one Twitter user. "Think about it: the #NoseHillGentlemen encounter could've ended with two dead young men because of a psychotically suspicious gun owner," wrote another.

For his part, Calgary's own Charles Bronson remains defiant.

"What concerned me is two young men just approached us and stopped us, stopping us by being in our path, and [began] talking to us without even being welcome to talk to us. They just took it upon themselves to yell at us," Wawra told CBC News, adding that "he should have the right to protect himself if things had escalated."

For the record, those two men were hired by the rodeo to give away free tickets and an American was so upset he didn't get to blow them away in broad daylight in a public park he wrote a series of letters about it.

You guys can have guns without going overboard with it ya know? We got lots of guns. I thought the only thing to fear was fear itself. Instead we have fear to justify all sorts of monstrous actions.

**Steelmage99**

Judge Russell Healey:

“To lose a child is a parent’s worst nightmare,” he said. “Mr. Dunn, your life is effectively over. … This case seems to exemplify that our society seems to have lost its way, its moral compass. Our thoughts and discussions ought to be about how we should treat one another. It’s not whether we can do something or act in a certain way or whether we have a right to do something, but whether it’s right and necessary and prudent.”

*This post also appears in the two other shooting related threads.*

**MrDwhitey**

Some places report the second confrontation started with the shooter leaning forward and instigating another conversation, the one that led to the popcorn throwing and shooting.

**kronk**

CptJake wrote:

If a guy comes over his seat to beat you senseless, and you are sitting in a movie theater seat, it is a bit difficult to 'run away and call the cops'. And frankly, the whole point of Stand Your Ground laws is you have NO obligation to run away. Period. If he hits you you have no obligation to assume he will only hit you once or twice and does not intend to really hurt you.

The question the judge/jury are looking at is did the shooter have a legitimate fear of being beaten? That is it. If he did, the law should protect him. If not, he will go to trial for murder. You're dislike of guns and belief folks should not have the right to defend themselves have no bearing on the legal issue being looked at.

Watch the video. The guy didn't appear to come over his seat. He was standing in front of him, and dropped the popcorn on the old man. The old man immediately shot him.

1. Yes, the angle isn't great.
2. Yes, there is no sound.

But it doesn't look good for the old man.

And for the "Guns are evil" crowd, keep that nonsense out of this. We've been up and down that road. Believe what you want.

**BobtheInquisitor**

Slip, I think that's more of a police officer attitude rather than a gun owner attitude. Most officers aren't like that (I believe), but when you meet one who is, it really makes an impression.

**Mad Doc Grotsnik**

America.

Your 'Stand Your Ground' law is fething ridiculous.

**Prestor Jon**

BrotherGecko wrote:
CptJake wrote:
Co'tor Shas wrote:
CptJake wrote:
It seems a bit lazy to believe he escalated and shot the guy for throwing popcorn.

Heck, at a minimum the 'throwing popcorn' actually was the texter standing up to face the shooter, reaching into the shooter's lap grabbing his popcorn then reaching back towards the shooters face to throw the popcorn into it. Once you start coming over the seat and grabbing/throwing into someones face that person very well could become worried about being physically harmed.

To the point of blowing him away however, feth no. You'll get hit with some popcorn, boo-hoo.

And, honestly, if he hits you, still not justification to kill him, IMO. Run away and call the cops. The only time a gun is the correct response is when they are actively trying to kill you.

There was no justification for this whatsoever, and this fether should be in jail for a long time, and never allowed to own a gun ever again.

If a guy comes over his seat to beat you senseless, and you are sitting in a movie theater seat, it is a bit difficult to 'run away and call the cops'. And frankly, the whole point of Stand Your Ground laws is you have NO obligation to run away. Period. If he hits you you have no obligation to assume he will only hit you once or twice and does not intend to really hurt you.

The question the judge/jury are looking at is did the shooter have a legitimate fear of being beaten? That is it. If he did, the law should protect him. If not, he will go to trial for murder. You're dislike of guns and belief folks should not have the right to defend themselves have no bearing on the legal issue being looked at.

Your defense of this is actually delegitimizing the rationale for a conceal and carry. I get you want to protect the right but some standard has to be in place beyond what the shooter "felt" in the moment. Which let us honestly admit, can be retroactively applied by the shooter and you seemingly will just assume they told the truth.

The man wasn't going to get beaten to death in a movie theater we can throw that arguement right out.

There is a standard and the statutes make it very clear that there has to be a reasonable fear of imminent harm. What constitutes "reasonable"? That's what we have DA's prosecutorial discretion and jury trials to determine. The other thread in here about the guy who shot a kid over playing the car stereo too loud shows that when the reasonable standard isn't met the shooter gets a prison sentence.

**Frazzled**

Steelmage99 wrote:
Judge Russell Healey:

“To lose a child is a parent’s worst nightmare,” he said. “Mr. Dunn, your life is effectively over. … This case seems to exemplify that our society seems to have lost its way, its moral compass. Our thoughts and discussions ought to be about how we should treat one another. It’s not whether we can do something or act in a certain way or whether we have a right to do something, but whether it’s right and necessary and prudent.”

*This post also appears in the two other shooting related threads.*

This post is not relevant to the thread.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
America.

Your 'Stand Your Ground' law is fething ridiculous.

So are you going to actually make a post or just troll the US?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

kronk wrote:
CptJake wrote:

If a guy comes over his seat to beat you senseless, and you are sitting in a movie theater seat, it is a bit difficult to 'run away and call the cops'. And frankly, the whole point of Stand Your Ground laws is you have NO obligation to run away. Period. If he hits you you have no obligation to assume he will only hit you once or twice and does not intend to really hurt you.

The question the judge/jury are looking at is did the shooter have a legitimate fear of being beaten? That is it. If he did, the law should protect him. If not, he will go to trial for murder. You're dislike of guns and belief folks should not have the right to defend themselves have no bearing on the legal issue being looked at.

Watch the video. The guy didn't appear to come over his seat. He was standing in front of him, and dropped the popcorn on the old man. The old man immediately shot him.

1. Yes, the angle isn't great.
2. Yes, there is no sound.

But it doesn't look good for the old man.

And for the "Guns are evil" crowd, keep that nonsense out of this. We've been up and down that road. Believe what you want.

Exactly. This isn't self defense. This is old man got into an argument and capped young guy.