Quote: (11-22-2011 03:02 PM)clr Wrote:
are you familiar with the law definition of "AGGRAVATED"? What they all have in common, outside defending your home, is that they all have the reasonable belief that someone will be harmed greatly or killed.
Given the behavior of the white man, Childress, and the fact that the black man, Waller, banged his girl, it seems there's a very good chance that they aren't going to play rock paper scissors to settle this one. So great harm doesn't seem like a distant prospect for Waller.
The letter of the law suggests Waller is in the clear, if our understanding of events is correct (over which we aren't arguing). Maybe the courts consistently (and mendaciously) interpret the law so as to make him a murderer, who knows.
Plus, the next law makes clear that had Waller stayed in his car and Childress tried to break in, Waller was well within his rights to shoot him.
Quote:Florida State Law Wrote:
776.013 Home protection; use of deadly force; presumption of fear of death or great bodily harm.—
(1) A person is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another when using defensive force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm to another if:
(a) The person against whom the defensive force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcefully entering, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, a dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle, or if that person had removed or was attempting to remove another against that person’s will from the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle; and
(b) The person who uses defensive force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry or unlawful and forcible act was occurring or had occurred.
*************************
Quote: (11-22-2011 03:02 PM)clr Wrote:
What I see is he wants to confront the guy. He stops at the stop sign, doesnt ram the car, again pulls in behind him, but again, stopped short, who is to say he wanted to to fight or just wanted to ask WTF? Thats my problem with the shooting.
Maybe Childress wanted the satisfaction of beating him with his bare hands, instead of passive aggressively ramming him. Men have killed each other over infidelity, very frequently.
Quote: (11-22-2011 06:53 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:
From where I stand, that is a clear case of murder that that man got away with. I don't care what his race is. If it were two white guys, or a white guy killing a black guy, I'd feel the same way.
From that video, I don't see how anyone could say that they could prove that the white guy had any deadly intent. He wasn't armed, correct? From the video, he charges the black guy to do what? To get in his face? to throw a punch? Who knows.
Now should the assailant up the ante by having a bat or a knife, or if you are about to get assaulted by a mob, now you have a feasible tool in the gun, perhaps.
Exactly. He could have been carrying a knife. You're Waller, you have no idea, and he's 5 feet away and sprinting towards you. You know he's mad as shit because you banged his girl, and you know that he knows. Like I said, men kill over this kind of thing, so thinking he wants more than a little thumb wrestling is very much justified.
Quote:Quote:
Either way, deadly force isn't justified from my point of view. Deadly intent can't be proven, and that's why its important to only use a weapon with someone else who also has one. You absolutely do not have the right to kill someone who gets a little too mad at you, if he's unarmed. You can't shoot people for "charging" at you or for throwing punches. That's absolutely ridiculous. Otherwise, we'd have people killing others with impunity, left and right. People could provoke others into wanting to fight them relatively easily, and then shoot them when they try to. "oh, I used to have a bunch of enemies but I just told them all that I fucked their girlfriends in the ass two weeks ago, they all got pissed, and now they're all dead. problem solved." The jury was wrong, imo. That man got away with murder. It would be interesting to see if he re-offends in his lifetime.
Except that Waller actively tried to avoid a fight, and the impetus for the fight was something that a man might kill over.
And I mean this on philosophical terms, as I don't know where the law stands on the following: What if you suck at fighting? I'm sure I could beat most women up, but if a guy is kicking my ass, twenty seconds in, I'm as good as a woman. Any equivalence or difference in size is irrelevant once one party is firmly on the ground. And at that point, the guy on the ground is completely at the mercy of the victor. The fair or unfair fight is a very hazy distinction.
And even if it weren't, why should I have to risk myself in a fight you started, and play by your rules? I don't own a gun, nor would I carry one around if I did. But if someone wants to fuck with me like that, after I had tried to avoid a fight, I think it's just to use deadly force in response. Barring the use of deadly force in the form of a gun just ensures that the guy with better fists wins.
PS: here's another vid I found:
Cliffs: Crazy homeless guy assaults cop who has his gun drawn. Cop struggles with crazy man, despite the intervention of another cop. One of the cops shoots the crazy man.
Here, I fully side with the cop, and think that the cop was within his rights to shoot him right before he first lunged. To be fair, Childress in the first video may have moved too quickly to see that Waller had a gun, unlike the crazy guy in this video.