It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Florida man cites ‘Bush doctrine’ after pre-emptive killing of neighbors at Labor Day cookout

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 11:00 PM
link   


Lawyers for a Florida man this week cited President George W. Bush’s pre-emptive war in Iraq and the “Bush Doctrine” as a defense after their client killed two neighbors and attempted to kill a third on Labor Day.

Florida Today reported on Wednesday that attorney’s for William T. Woodward had filed a motion asking for charges against him to be dismissed under Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, which says that gun owners do not have a duty to retreat in the face of an “imminent” threat.

According to officials in Titusville, Woodward had snuck up on his neighbors while they were having a Labor Day barbecue. Police responding to the scene found that Gary Lee Hembree, Roger Picior and Bruce Timothy had all been shot.

www.rawstory.com...< br />
This thing with stand your ground is really getting out of hand any fool with a gripe or irrational fear can just go shoot some one,mind you it's unlikely that he will escape justice..but!! this is Florida you never know.




posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Spider879
 


This thing with stand your ground is really getting out of hand


Spider...stand your ground wasn't the defense utilized.


Knowing that now - don't you think your thread sucks..?





posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 11:13 PM
link   

facelift
reply to post by Spider879
 


This thing with stand your ground is really getting out of hand


Spider...stand your ground wasn't the defense utilized.


Knowing that now - don't you think your thread sucks..?




Wednesday that attorney’s for William T. Woodward had filed a motion asking for charges against him to be dismissed under Florida’s Stand Your Ground law,
Pls read carefully.

edit on 5-9-2013 by Spider879 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2013 @ 11:21 PM
link   
(In reply to Facelift)
Actually, the article states a combination of "stand your ground," and "bush doctrine."

Apparently, the bush doctrine is used to state that the neighbors were an imminent threat before any attack on their part, and then the stand your ground law was used as a justification for not retreating but instead confronting said threat. At least that is how I read it. Legalistic BS that won't stand I'm sure.

Terrible thing to happen to these people's families.
edit on 5-9-2013 by AudioOne because: oops



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 05:53 AM
link   
I don't see this one qualifying as a stand your ground case. This is just lawyers doing what lawyers do, twisting the spirit of the law in pursuit of the letter of it. Stand your Ground has some serious issues that need to be addressed, but no one will be served as long as people keep dragging cases like this in as an example of what is wrong. Now if the case had been dismissed on stand your ground it would be a different issue. But as of this moment it is just being used as a legal maneuver



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by KeliOnyx
 

I completely agree.

Just a new popular keyword people are using after GZ to try to make a defense. It won't work. Hopefully people in general will see through it and not push to remove the law over situations like this one.

Reminds me of Gubber on Mayberry running around yelling citizen's arrest at Barney.



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 07:19 AM
link   
There has to be a lot that was left out of this story, in one way or another.



In their motion, Woodward’s attorneys claimed that the victims had called him names and threatened to “get him.”


What does this mean? Does this mean that they had previously called the man racial slurs and threatened to "get him" as in get him and make him suffer or kill him? Was it a threat? Where a grew up if someone told someone else they were going to "get you mother F-er", that meant you were going to get taken down one way or another. At the least beat up, and at the most killed.

... Or maybe that called him a "egg sucking clown face" and threatened to "get him a big red nose and funny clown wig"... and the guy is soooooooooo crazy that he decided to shoot them all.

The lawyers are moving to have the charges dropped by citing the stand your ground doctrine by proposing that "imminent threat" can also mean "sometime in the near future" and not necessarily at a point where you have a gun at your head at that exact moment.

This begs the question: If someone comes up to you and says, "I am going to kill you in exactly 1 hour and 42 minutes", (or imply that they are going to kill you at any arbitrary time) What are your rights exactly?

Should you call the police (seriously, what good are the police?)

or should you run away?

Should you live in fear?

Should you kill the person who threatened you and nullify the threat to your life?

We should all be taking a lot more responsibility for the words that come out of our mouths. That is what having free speech is all about. If we can't do that, then we won't have free speech, and we won't have the ability to carry firearms, etc.. etc... etc.. all of our rights go straight down the toilet.

Our society is full of degenerates who don't know how to act on both sides, which is precisely why big brother is cracking down. Government are scooping us up as a whole and taking away all of our play-time privileges (name calling and bang-bang toys) because we have no responsibility... just like a bunch of little kids that don't know any better.



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 07:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Spider879
 


No they can't. Stand your ground won't get this guy off as there was no threat to him. SYG is a good thing. Innocent people get off and guilty people go to jail.



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 07:29 AM
link   


This begs the question: If someone comes up to you and says, "I am going to kill you in exactly 1 hour and 42 minutes", (or imply that they are going to kill you at any arbitrary time)


That does not give a person the right to shoot them. If the talker is holding a gun while he says it then yes.

edit:

Maybe arrest for assault if the person can make the police believe it...
edit on 9/6/2013 by roadgravel because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 09:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Spider879
 
I'm curious if it was his lawyer or himself that came up with that defense?

Good try but I don't think it will fly past a jury.

If anything they'll probably get him on pre-meditated murder.



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spider879


This thing with stand your ground is really getting out of hand any fool with a gripe or irrational fear can just go shoot some one,mind you it's unlikely that he will escape justice..but!! this is Florida you never know.


What thing with stand your ground? There hasn't been a case recently that got much attention that stand your ground was used. Certainly you aren't bringing up the Zimmerman trial again because it was NOT used in that trial. I can only guess you are misdirecting it at the Zimmerman trial since you specifically reference it being in FL.



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 03:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Vasa Croe

Originally posted by Spider879


This thing with stand your ground is really getting out of hand any fool with a gripe or irrational fear can just go shoot some one,mind you it's unlikely that he will escape justice..but!! this is Florida you never know.


What thing with stand your ground? There hasn't been a case recently that got much attention that stand your ground was used. Certainly you aren't bringing up the Zimmerman trial again because it was NOT used in that trial. I can only guess you are misdirecting it at the Zimmerman trial since you specifically reference it being in FL.


The article referenced GZ not I.. however that is also on my mind TBH..there are other cases where things seems crazy to me at least with SYG. even before GZ's case.
edit on 6-9-2013 by Spider879 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by TWILITE22
reply to post by Spider879
 
I'm curious if it was his lawyer or himself that came up with that defense?

Good try but I don't think it will fly past a jury.

If anything they'll probably get him on pre-meditated murder.



His lawyers..and I agree but you never know until after the jury decision.



posted on Sep, 6 2013 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by WhatAreThey
 





What does this mean? Does this mean that they had previously called the man racial slurs and threatened to "get him" as in get him and make him suffer or kill him? Was it a threat? Where a grew up if someone told someone else they were going to "get you mother F-er", that meant you were going to get taken down one way or another. At the least beat up, and at the most killed.

I am assuming everyone is White both victims and perp.but at the end of the day if some one threatened you it's best to report to the cops, at-least you have something on record.



new topics

top topics



 
5

log in

join