Originally posted by getreadyalready
There is definitely fault on both sides. Why did the guy answer the door if he didn't know who it was? Obviously his gun was no help for him. If he was trying to protect himself he did a piss-poor job at it.
If you are scared of the people at the door, you don't just swing it open holding a gun and get shot to death. You investigate a little, you ask who it is, you peek out another _ If you are going to open it, you make sure you are ready to shoot!
The guy should never have swung open a door to unknown parties and pointed a gun at them. Sure, the cops are not supposed to shoot the wrong guy, but if a cop thinks they are approaching an attempted murderer, and a guy fitting the description opens the door and points a gun at them, of course they are going to shoot.
It is a tragedy, but there is enough blame to spread around to everyone on this one.
The Florida "Castle Doctrine" law basically does three things:
One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.
Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others. [This is an American right repeatedly recognized in Supreme Court gun cases.]
Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force.
It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them.
In short, it gives rights back to law-abiding people and forces judges and prosecutors who are prone to coddling criminals to instead focus on protecting victims.
SO -- is this the impression you got from the news? Why not? Aren’t media people impartial purveyors of objective facts, with no bias or spin, faithfully and accurately reporting the news? Everyone who believes that’s an accurate description of the news media please raise your hand. See? No hands go up. Despite their protests otherwise, the news media has, in general, and especially with respect to gun issues, become an outrageous purveyor of agenda-driven nonsense on the dark side of the force.
Originally posted by xyankee
reply to post by WildTurkey101
I thought that they were required, but I guess not. This is a really bad job on the part of the county and someone should pay the price but they will cover it up, just watch.
Originally posted by Bedlam
[alternative ending 1]
BANG BANG Open up!
yah what's up
POW POW POW stop POW halt POW hands up you POW POW arrrgh...thump.
Hey Ed - it's the wrong guy.
Aw, *. Ok, you got a hold out?
Yep, here you go. Ok, he opened the door with a gun, right?
You bet. Oh, and let's sprinkle a little crack on him too.
Then why knock?
I would expect that police would not have identified themselves as police because maybe they had no indication that someone was going to answer the door.
Originally posted by CrikeyMagnet
reply to post by getreadyalready
As far as police "getting away with this", they pretty much have to. They MUST have the ability to fire if someone's life is in danger. I don't remember if there was mention of how many officers were at the door... but every one of them was in danger as a result of a pointed firearm. As far as I'm concerned, their reaction needed to be "stop this guy from shooting".
Originally posted by roadgravel
So being safe in one's own house is now out the door? Cops should shoot the guy because he had a gun in his house? They had no warrant for him and he was the wrong guy to boot.
Hard to believe people will just give the police such an easy pass on this one.