quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

So you have no idea what you are arguing but just want to retreat to snark. I got it. Get back to me when you figure out what you meant.

I'm sorry you're confused. Okay, let me help. I'm arguing exactly what I said. All you have to do is just focus on that, and remember that it's English. It's easy it is once you know the trick!

You're arguing that it's ok to shoot someone because
1) They are approaching you
2) Have something in their hand
3) You have spoken to them

You seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding what constitutes a reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm.

So are we back to giving them first strike.

Do you not understand that you have to be in actual imminent danger? Being worried is not enough.

Do you not understand that when you allow someone with a bludgeon walk right up to you you have given him right of
first strike?
Do you comprehend that as smart person with a bludgeon will walk up to you rather than charge, better tactics.
Can't you see that by any reasonable view Hendrix had every reason to see a real threat?
Don't you comprehend that all your pontificating aside we do not know that Westbrook was harmless.
For all we know he may have thought Hendrix was an intruder and that he was defending his home.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

So you have no idea what you are arguing but just want to retreat to snark. I got it. Get back to me when you figure out what you meant.

I'm sorry you're confused. Okay, let me help. I'm arguing exactly what I said. All you have to do is just focus on that, and remember that it's English. It's easy it is once you know the trick!

You're arguing that it's ok to shoot someone because
1) They are approaching you
2) Have something in their hand
3) You have spoken to them

You seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding what constitutes a reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm.

So are we back to giving them first strike.

Do you not understand that you have to be in actual imminent danger? Being worried is not enough.

Do you not understand that when you allow someone with a bludgeon walk right up to you you have given him right of
first strike?
Do you comprehend that as smart person with a bludgeon will walk up to you rather than charge, better tactics.
Can't you see that by any reasonable view Hendrix had every reason to see a real threat?
Don't you comprehend that all your pontificating aside we do not know that Westbrook was harmless.
For all we know he may have thought Hendrix was an intruder and that he was defending his home.

And there lies the problem, the reasonable man would not have left his home after calling 911. And if the reasonable man had left his home he would have turned on a light before shooting.

Always remember the standard is what the reasonable man would do not would you would do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
The fact that the warnings went unheeded would increase the indication of hostile intent.

I don't agree with that statement.
I have challenged unknown people in my yard at night.
Unless I am directly challenged or I SEE that I'm being confronted in an unfriendly manner - I never assume hostile intent.

Are the American people sooo paranoid that they assume hostility all the time?? [8|]

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
How do you know that Westbrook was harmless.

Because we wasn't being confrontational in any way.

Why do the same people on here automatically assume people are bad and being nasty (and thereby justifying someone being shot or killed) when there is NO evidence of such in the news stories??

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Advancing on a man with a gun when he tells you 3 times not to is pretty aggressive.
The sort of thing a crack head would do.

Maybe. But a lot is all down to context and position.

If an unarmed person is not being overtly aggressive and the defendant has a gun, there is still no need to shoot the fucker UNTIL it becomes an imminent danger.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: lovmuffin
Then how is he supposed to know he's in imminent danger ? 4 warnings ? 5 maybe ? How is he supposed to know the guy was impaired ? How can you pass moral judgement without all the facts ?

Perhaps your understanding of imminent is lacking.
Try here: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/imminent

There could be a dozen warnings.
It's not the number of them that matters - it's the proximity of the assailant that is important.
All the while they are out of physical reach, then it isn't very imminent is it.
Once they make that final step, or make a lunge, or attempt to throw something at you, that is when you act, not before; unless you are making a definite action to disarm or immobilize them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
So are we back to giving them first strike.

Yeah we wouldn't want to wait until there's an actual threat. So it should be legal to shoot tea party protestors, right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
So they get a free shot

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Advancing on a man with a gun when he tells you 3 times not to is pretty aggressive.
The sort of thing a crack head would do.

Maybe. But a lot is all down to context and position.

If an unarmed person is not being overtly aggressive and the defendant has a gun, there is still no need to shoot the fucker UNTIL it becomes an imminent danger.

Not relevant as neither was unarmed.

quote:

Cool. Thanks!

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
So they get a free shot

He didn't have a firearm.
It has already been established that Westbrook was carrying a flashlight, not a gun. [8|]

quote:



Yeah we wouldn't want to wait until there's an actual threat. So it should be legal to shoot tea party protestors, right?

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Advancing on a man with a gun when he tells you 3 times not to is pretty aggressive.
The sort of thing a crack head would do.

Maybe. But a lot is all down to context and position.

If an unarmed person is not being overtly aggressive and the defendant has a gun, there is still no need to shoot the fucker UNTIL it becomes an imminent danger.

Not relevant as neither was unarmed.

Hendrix was armed with a firearm. Established fact.
Westbrook was known to to be carrying a flashlight - no firearm. Established fact.
Carry a flashlight is not illegal and neither is it a weapon unless you reach hand-to-hand combat.
And as I commented earlier.... according to the ABC and BBC news, they were not actually face-to-face, ie, not within physical touching distance. Ergo, no hand-to-hand combat or a brawl ensued. Established fact.
So.... Both very relevant.

Given that Hendrix was able to voice 3 warnings, that was ample time to ascertain his exact position and observe the assailant and make a full assessment of the situation.
Even after all that, he still pulled the trigger and shot Westbrook. Dead.
That, to me, isn't SYG or even a valid excuse for a defense.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

So you have no idea what you are arguing but just want to retreat to snark. I got it. Get back to me when you figure out what you meant.

I'm sorry you're confused. Okay, let me help. I'm arguing exactly what I said. All you have to do is just focus on that, and remember that it's English. It's easy it is once you know the trick!

You're arguing that it's ok to shoot someone because
1) They are approaching you
2) Have something in their hand
3) You have spoken to them

You seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding what constitutes a reasonable fear of imminent bodily harm.

So are we back to giving them first strike.

Do you not understand that you have to be in actual imminent danger? Being worried is not enough.

Do you not understand that when you allow someone with a bludgeon walk right up to you you have given him right of
first strike?
Do you comprehend that as smart person with a bludgeon will walk up to you rather than charge, better tactics.
Can't you see that by any reasonable view Hendrix had every reason to see a real threat?
Don't you comprehend that all your pontificating aside we do not know that Westbrook was harmless.
For all we know he may have thought Hendrix was an intruder and that he was defending his home.

And there lies the problem, the reasonable man would not have left his home after calling 911. And if the reasonable man had left his home he would have turned on a light before shooting.

Always remember the standard is what the reasonable man would do not would you would do.

As a couple of us have pointed out going outside gets the family from getting caught in a crossfire.
And as we have pointed out we have a greater edge without turning on the light.
And you have not documented a lack of street lighting which would totally discredit your entire lighting argument.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
Advancing on a man with a gun when he tells you 3 times not to is pretty aggressive.
The sort of thing a crack head would do.

Maybe. But a lot is all down to context and position.

If an unarmed person is not being overtly aggressive and the defendant has a gun, there is still no need to shoot the fucker UNTIL it becomes an imminent danger.

Not relevant as neither was unarmed.

Hendrix was armed with a firearm. Established fact.
Westbrook was known to to be carrying a flashlight - no firearm. Established fact.
Carry a flashlight is not illegal and neither is it a weapon unless you reach hand-to-hand combat.
And as I commented earlier.... according to the ABC and BBC news, they were not actually face-to-face, ie, not within physical touching distance. Ergo, no hand-to-hand combat or a brawl ensued. Established fact.
So.... Both very relevant.

Given that Hendrix was able to voice 3 warnings, that was ample time to ascertain his exact position and observe the assailant and make a full assessment of the situation.
Even after all that, he still pulled the trigger and shot Westbrook. Dead.
That, to me, isn't SYG or even a valid excuse for a defense.

When carrying a firearm you cannot allow a man with a club to engage in hand to hand, particularly one who is walking into the muzzle of a .40 with no apparent concern.
And once again we hear from the give the intruder a free shot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

If he didn't KNOW, he shouldn't have fired his weapon. Period.
You don't get to shoot first and ask questions later - SYG doesn't (or shouldn't) work like that.
And neither shouldn't any sensible defense IMHO.

To me, a flashlight is an everyday object carried by many people when it's dark.
Unless the person is wielding it in a menacing manner, it shouldn't be considered as a weapon.


You seem to have forgotten that a couple of months ago we had a thread about a man beaten to death
with a flashlight.
Menacing manner anyone who ignore three warnings is menacing.
As for not knowing what did he need, a notarized letter of intent.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

All you know is someone has rang your doorbell and jiggled the knob. Their is no reason to believe that indicates someone is armed so that invalidates the whole crossfire bullshit.
There is no edge to going without lighting.as I've already explained. Kirata even helpfully posting some medical facts about eyesight proving it.
And what good would street lighting be behind the house? Anyway it's unlikely, unless this was in the very downtown part of Chickamauga, that there were street lights at all. We're talking about mountain small town Goergia.


Then there was no reason to call the police was there, after all no reason to think there was any problem.
After all people innocently try to get into my house all the time.
I live in a much smaller town than Chicamauga and every street has lights, your anti southern bias is showing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

You cannot shoot someone unless they are an actual imminent threat to do you grievous bodily harm. And yes, that means most times they do get to attack you before you can kill them.

Come on that is just dumb.
You do not have to give them first strike they may get one in but that doesn't mean you have to give them the first one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: angelikaJ

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

If he didn't KNOW, he shouldn't have fired his weapon. Period.
You don't get to shoot first and ask questions later - SYG doesn't (or shouldn't) work like that.
And neither shouldn't any sensible defense IMHO.

To me, a flashlight is an everyday object carried by many people when it's dark.
Unless the person is wielding it in a menacing manner, it shouldn't be considered as a weapon.


You seem to have forgotten that a couple of months ago we had a thread about a man beaten to death
with a flashlight.
Menacing manner anyone who ignore three warnings is menacing.
As for not knowing what did he need, a notarized letter of intent.

He did not know it was a flashlight.
He could not identify that it was a flashlight, because it was too dark.

I understand people wanting to protect themselves/loved ones from dangerous assailants.
But one should be able to see exactly what it is one is shooting at.

And had he been able to see, he likely would have understood that this wasn't some drug-crazed burglar.