Does Stand Your Ground Apply

[RGinWA 816]

why do you keep an ak 47 in your trunk? i don't get it.

Because the bad people might get him.

[slim 1,533]

you keep an ak 47 in your trunk for fear that a man may attack you with a knife and umbrella for turning down his advances?

i saw that woman have plenty of time to walk away from that whole situation.

Hey, strange stuff can happen. Never know.

I, like a reasonable and rational person, asked myself why she didnt just walk away. Why didnt she get in her car and ride out? Well, what if she wouldve tried and dude stabbed her as she got in?

You can Monday morning quarterback these scenarios to death but they always come down to one thing. Was the shooter's life in imminent danger?

[decocker 7,198]

You can Monday morning quarterback these scenarios to death but they always come down to one thing. Was the shooter's life in imminent danger?

from watching the video and knowing she took pictures afterward?..no, i don't believe she felt her life threatened so much as she felt justified.

[RGinWA 816]

from watching the video and knowing she took pictures afterward?..no, i don't believe she felt her life threatened so much as she felt justified.

The photo was her right to profit from homicide on TMZ.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

I would say that the shooting was justified. Poochie took a punch and had both a knife and the umbrella to further harm the target of his affection.

Taking the picture and driving off was odd, but I don't see that as meaning the shooting wasn't justifiable.

[lostinblue 1,989]

I would say that the shooting was justified. Poochie took a punch and had both a knife and the umbrella to further harm the target of his affection.

Taking the picture and driving off was odd, but I don't see that as meaning the shooting wasn't justifiable.

She was justified if she felt that her life was still in danger. Say he belonged to a gang and perhaps

her life was in danger IF she stayed in the area. Taking a photo would be proof that a knife was involved in the crime that might be gone before the police arrived. IE(by another gang member. ) One wonders if she then called the police. If not then that may change the dynamics of the case, I have read that perhaps she had drugs in the car and needed to get rid of them as the car may have been searched after the police arrived IF she has stayed in the area.

[lostinblue 1,989]

you keep an ak 47 in your trunk for fear that a man may attack you with a knife and umbrella for turning down his advances?

i saw that woman have plenty of time to walk away from that whole situation.

Tueller Drill.... an attacker armed with an impact weapon can cross, from a standing start, a distance of 21 feet and strike a mortal blow in about 1.5 seconds–far less time than most people need to bring a firearm into play and get solid center-mass hits.

LEOs have recognized this standard for at least the last 20 years. They are justified (proven and case law)in a court of law to shoot if the suspect who is armed with a knife or club ect,,,, crosses that 21 ft line,

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

If someone's chasing you... are you going to turn and fight or keep it moving?

Ask a question or throw a punch?

Once again, you're making the point for me.

If TM was "prey" and scared for his life, why would he turn and fight? As the above poster mentioned, if you're moving along and someone is following you, wouldn't you just keep it moving?

You really do need to check your emotions and make logical arguments. In your haste to "catch me" you've once again made yourself look silly.

Nope. Killing someone who is going to hurt you is not OK. Killing someone who is going to kill you is OK.

In the OP, the lady was threatened by a man with a knife. He had the means to kill her and showed his intentions by swinging it at her. He meant to kill her. She had every right to kill him by defending herself. Same with GZ. When his head was bashed into the ground repeatedly, he had every right to defend himself. If he was following someone and placed them in fear - not fear for their life but just made them kind of scared - that person didn't have the right to put his life in jeopardy. That's the part folks keep missing.

Defending yourself is one thing. Defending yourself with deadly force is quite another.

SYG is for anyone at any time their life is threatened. Not before. You can keep trying to apply all this "extra" stuff to it but it's irrelevant.

If someone is chasing me, do I have the right to stand my ground? In the case of TM/GZ, why wouldn't TM feel his life is threatened? He was being chased by an adult at night, who refused to identify himself, who never said what he wanted. Even the cops asked him why didn't he just tell him who he was. GZ was baffled by this, as if it didn't matter.

I am a strong believer of conflict resolution, that's why I don't start conflict. There were quite a few ways to handle this properly. Even by the neighborhood watch standards, GZ disregarded every single rule in the book. You said it's ok because it helps reduce crime, but there was no crime committed for him to reduce when this dude was walking home. He could have just asked him, which would have defused the situation.

I can't understand why someone who carries an AK-47 in his trunk, has made comments about the government taking over, and all about SYG, refuses to see that a 17 yo teenager walking home at night being followed by a stranger who couldn't be bothered to defuse the situation would react the way he did when that stranger caught up with him and reached in his pocket for something.

[slim 1,533]

from watching the video and knowing she took pictures afterward?..no, i don't believe she felt her life threatened so much as she felt justified.

There was an immediate threat to her life. Pretty easy to see that on the video. As others have posted, the video was to prove he had a knife, not to gloat or brag about it on facebook.

Taking a photo would be proof that a knife was involved in the crime

Bingo. There were other men hanging around the area and she left because they too could be a threat if she stuck around.

Tueller Drill.... an attacker armed with an impact weapon can cross, from a standing start, a distance of 21 feet and strike a mortal blow in about 1.5 seconds–far less time than most people need to bring a firearm into play and get solid center-mass hits.

LEOs have recognized this standard for at least the last 20 years. They are justified (proven and case law)in a court of law to shoot if the suspect who is armed with a knife or club ect,,,, crosses that 21 ft line,

Why I keep a .45 on my person when I can.

We have some crazy laws here about when/where one can carry a pistol. I can't always keep one on my person but I can typically keep one in my trunk. Ohio's laws (until very recently) were such that I couldn't keep a loaded rifle or shotgun in my vehicle but I could carry a loaded pistol. As such I ended up with the AK pistol to legally fit the definition of concealed carry.

Since that's now changed, I've toyed with the idea of switching to a shotgun for the trunk gun but the AK's been in there for a while and my kit is set up in such a way that it's very practical to keep running the AK instead of switching to scattergun.

I'm not sure why anyone wouldn't carry a firearm in their vehicle.

If someone is chasing me, do I have the right to stand my ground?

... and reached in his pocket for something.

Everyone has the right to defend themselves from a perceived threat. Nobody has the right to use deadly force unless their life is threatened. A guy following someone doesn't equate to an immediate deadly threat and therefore the application of force in self defense must equal the perceived threat. Guy "chasing" someone "catches" them. They can push off, etc., but they can't bash his head into the ground.

Are you sure GZ reached into his pocket?

It is quite possible it happened.

Where this loses credibility is when TM jumps on top of GZ and starts slamming his head into the ground. If you're afraid someone might have something in their pocket, why would you be going for anything other than that pocket? Trying to keep the arm pinned in the pocket or ascertaining what's in the pocket is plausible. Slamming the threat's head to the ground repeatedly - while ignoring that arm/pocket - just doesn't make any sense.

If it's an instant reaction and done to stop the threat it could make sense. But the duration of TM on top of GZ repeatedly slamming his head down suggests the threat was more than mitigated.

[decocker 7,198]

There was an immediate threat to her life. Pretty easy to see that on the video. As others have posted, the video was to prove he had a knife, not to gloat or brag about it on facebook.

take a picture for your own evidence and leave the scene of a murder. right..

Tueller Drill.... an attacker armed with an impact weapon can cross, from a standing start, a distance of 21 feet and strike a mortal blow in about 1.5 seconds–far less time than most people need to bring a firearm into play and get solid center-mass hits.

LEOs have recognized this standard for at least the last 20 years. They are justified (proven and case law)in a court of law to shoot if the suspect who is armed with a knife or club ect,,,, crosses that 21 ft line,

i have no idea what you're talking about.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

There was an immediate threat to her life. Pretty easy to see that on the video. As others have posted, the video was to prove he had a knife, not to gloat or brag about it on facebook.

Bingo. There were other men hanging around the area and she left because they too could be a threat if she stuck around.

Why I keep a .45 on my person when I can.

We have some crazy laws here about when/where one can carry a pistol. I can't always keep one on my person but I can typically keep one in my trunk. Ohio's laws (until very recently) were such that I couldn't keep a loaded rifle or shotgun in my vehicle but I could carry a loaded pistol. As such I ended up with the AK pistol to legally fit the definition of concealed carry.

Since that's now changed, I've toyed with the idea of switching to a shotgun for the trunk gun but the AK's been in there for a while and my kit is set up in such a way that it's very practical to keep running the AK instead of switching to scattergun.

I'm not sure why anyone wouldn't carry a firearm in their vehicle.

Everyone has the right to defend themselves from a perceived threat. Nobody has the right to use deadly force unless their life is threatened. A guy following someone doesn't equate to an immediate deadly threat and therefore the application of force in self defense must equal the perceived threat. Guy "chasing" someone "catches" them. They can push off, etc., but they can't bash his head into the ground.

Are you sure GZ reached into his pocket?

It is quite possible it happened.

Where this loses credibility is when TM jumps on top of GZ and starts slamming his head into the ground. If you're afraid someone might have something in their pocket, why would you be going for anything other than that pocket? Trying to keep the arm pinned in the pocket or ascertaining what's in the pocket is plausible. Slamming the threat's head to the ground repeatedly - while ignoring that arm/pocket - just doesn't make any sense.

If it's an instant reaction and done to stop the threat it could make sense. But the duration of TM on top of GZ repeatedly slamming his head down suggests the threat was more than mitigated.

Here's the problem with your equation: GZ himself said it. He said that as soon as TM asked the question, he said he didn't have a problem and reached for his cell phone. Now, that's his account. The witness on the phone said that GZ caught up to TM and said what are you doing here. She said TM said what are you following me for, then the line with dead. Even B37 said there were fabrications within GZ's story, but they didn't matter since he was assaulted. The interesting thing is, he was the aggressor until he got out of the car, then the roles changed. I guess you are the predator until you realize your prey has bigger teeth than you.

You're talking about a 17 year old who has just spent the last 4 minutes of his life being chased by a grown man for no reason. I'm willing to bet he was scared/angry. You talk like we are trained to think, which is great in a scenario, but doesn't pan out IRL since fear and other factors might come into play.

[Teddy B 17,252]

White guy marries white girl and white guy spends the rest of his life wishing someone would kill him.

[Ban Hammer 13,588]

at face value, yes, it appears justified. however, after watching the video, i am unclear on what exactly happened prior to him hitting her. i'm not entirely sure she didn't shoot him in the left foot first, based on his reaction in the video.

[slim 1,533]

Here's the problem with your equation: GZ himself said it. He said that as soon as TM asked the question, he said he didn't have a problem and reached for his cell phone. Now, that's his account. The witness on the phone said that GZ caught up to TM and said what are you doing here. She said TM said what are you following me for, then the line with dead. Even B37 said there were fabrications within GZ's story, but they didn't matter since he was assaulted. The interesting thing is, he was the aggressor until he got out of the car, then the roles changed. I guess you are the predator until you realize your prey has bigger teeth than you.

You're talking about a 17 year old who has just spent the last 4 minutes of his life being chased by a grown man for no reason. I'm willing to bet he was scared/angry. You talk like we are trained to think, which is great in a scenario, but doesn't pan out IRL since fear and other factors might come into play.

So there was a break in the action. The two "talked" for a few seconds.

I'm still missing something here. You're alleging it went from "talking" by both parties to GZ reaching for a cell phone and thats why TM punched him, jumped on top of him, then started slamming his head into the ground?

If that's the case what does anything at all that happened before that point matter? You keep bringing up GZ "chasing" TM. If there was a break in that chase where both were able to ask questions, then any confrontation from then on begins a new set of circumstances.

at face value, yes, it appears justified. however, after watching the video, i am unclear on what exactly happened prior to him hitting her. i'm not entirely sure she didn't shoot him in the left foot first, based on his reaction in the video.

I'm going to rewatch it. If she did, in fact, shoot him in the foot, this is not a case of SYG or even self defense. She'll be doing 20 to life.

[Penny Lane 8,159]

She shot him more than once?

I forgot to watch this when I got home last night and now I can't watch at work.