Another "stand your ground" shooting in Florida

[Luddly Neddite]

Florida man cites ?Bush doctrine? after pre-emptive killing of neighbors at Labor Day cookout | The Raw Story

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.....

The court document filed by the defense also cited “The Bush Doctrine,” a foreign policy principle used by President George W. Bush to justify the invasion of Iraq. “The Bush Doctrine” embraces “preventive” or pre-emptive war.

Watch Florida Man Murder His Neighbors Because They Were Mean To Him (VIDEO) -

There is a tactic used in debates known as the “slippery slope” fallacy in which one side claims that a course of action will inevitably lead to a ridiculous conclusion. For instance: conservatives like to claim that marriage equality will lead to legalized pedophilia and bestiality. The idea is to fearmonger the other side into acquiescence. It’s also used to deflect legitimate criticism by insisting a perfectly reasonable fear is overblown. The NRA and the gun nut lobby has been using this to defend the easily abused “Stand Your Ground” law but, sooner or later, reality comes crashing down:

Attorneys for a man who police said shot three people at the culmination of a neighborhood feud have filed a motion demanding a jury determine whether William T. Woodward’s murder charges should be dismissed under Florida’s Stand Your Ground law.

The motion says Woodward had been the target of a variety of threats and “exercised his right under Florida law to defend himself and his family that night.”

This defense represents an incredibly dangerous evolution and escalation of the idea of “self defense.” Stand Your Ground laws have already distorted self defense to an almost meaningless concept but this new case threatens to unleash a wave of violence that will be difficult to stem. What makes this case so different?...

If his defense, which cites, of all things, the Bush Doctrine of preemptive attacks, is successful (and we’re talking about Florida here) then “self-defense” will officially be dead as a concept. In its place will be what is essentially a lawless state in which anyone that utters the words “I’ll kick your ass” is now a legal target for murder. After all, how can you tell if they’re serious or not? Better to be safe and nip that threat in the chest with a dozen rounds....

You might be tempted to claim that I am, indeed, using the slippery slope argument but ask yourself, honestly, if you would have thought, just 15 years ago, that the idea of chasing and killing a person running away from you or killing two men breaking into a neighbor’s empty house could ever be considered “self defense.”

What ever happened to being responsible for one's own actions?

Shouldn't we charge people with crimes they have actually committed instead of punishing them for they might do?

 

[martybegan]

Florida man cites ?Bush doctrine? after pre-emptive killing of neighbors at Labor Day cookout | The Raw Story

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.....

The court document filed by the defense also cited “The Bush Doctrine,” a foreign policy principle used by President George W. Bush to justify the invasion of Iraq. “The Bush Doctrine” embraces “preventive” or pre-emptive war.

Watch Florida Man Murder His Neighbors Because They Were Mean To Him (VIDEO) -

There is a tactic used in debates known as the “slippery slope” fallacy in which one side claims that a course of action will inevitably lead to a ridiculous conclusion. For instance: conservatives like to claim that marriage equality will lead to legalized pedophilia and bestiality. The idea is to fearmonger the other side into acquiescence. It’s also used to deflect legitimate criticism by insisting a perfectly reasonable fear is overblown. The NRA and the gun nut lobby has been using this to defend the easily abused “Stand Your Ground” law but, sooner or later, reality comes crashing down:

Attorneys for a man who police said shot three people at the culmination of a neighborhood feud have filed a motion demanding a jury determine whether William T. Woodward’s murder charges should be dismissed under Florida’s Stand Your Ground law.

The motion says Woodward had been the target of a variety of threats and “exercised his right under Florida law to defend himself and his family that night.”

This defense represents an incredibly dangerous evolution and escalation of the idea of “self defense.” Stand Your Ground laws have already distorted self defense to an almost meaningless concept but this new case threatens to unleash a wave of violence that will be difficult to stem. What makes this case so different?...

If his defense, which cites, of all things, the Bush Doctrine of preemptive attacks, is successful (and we’re talking about Florida here) then “self-defense” will officially be dead as a concept. In its place will be what is essentially a lawless state in which anyone that utters the words “I’ll kick your ass” is now a legal target for murder. After all, how can you tell if they’re serious or not? Better to be safe and nip that threat in the chest with a dozen rounds....

You might be tempted to claim that I am, indeed, using the slippery slope argument but ask yourself, honestly, if you would have thought, just 15 years ago, that the idea of chasing and killing a person running away from you or killing two men breaking into a neighbor’s empty house could ever be considered “self defense.”

What ever happened to being responsible for one's own actions?

Shouldn't we charge people with crimes they have actually committed instead of punishing them for they might do?

Yeah, this is going to go nowhere, as it has nothing to do with stand your ground. this is a typical defense tactic of trying to pin an imminent threat onto something that is not imminent. This defense has been around for decades.

go fail somewhere else luddy.

and this is still not a reason for me to have to retreat before I can defend myself, nor a reason why I should not have access to a firearm.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Yeah, this is going to go nowhere, as it has nothing to do with stand your ground. this is a typical defense tactic of trying to pin an imminent threat onto something that is not imminent. This defense has been around for decades.

go fail somewhere else luddy.

and this is still not a reason for me to have to retreat before I can defend myself, nor a reason why I should not have access to a firearm.

You not only can't tell the difference between what the articles say and what I said, you have dodged both.

That's okay and exactly what I expected.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Yeah, this is going to go nowhere, as it has nothing to do with stand your ground. this is a typical defense tactic of trying to pin an imminent threat onto something that is not imminent. This defense has been around for decades.

go fail somewhere else luddy.

and this is still not a reason for me to have to retreat before I can defend myself, nor a reason why I should not have access to a firearm.

You not only can't tell the difference between what the articles say and what I said, you have dodged both.

That's okay and exactly what I expected.

You are creating your own reality.
This thread is your way of furthering the unarmed citizen agenda.
Nice try.
Stand your ground applies only if there is imminent physical danger and a reasonable belief that one's life is in danger. That's all.
This thread is so ridiculous, I am not subscribing.
You can wring your hands on your own.

 

[martybegan]

Yeah, this is going to go nowhere, as it has nothing to do with stand your ground. this is a typical defense tactic of trying to pin an imminent threat onto something that is not imminent. This defense has been around for decades.

go fail somewhere else luddy.

and this is still not a reason for me to have to retreat before I can defend myself, nor a reason why I should not have access to a firearm.

You not only can't tell the difference between what the articles say and what I said, you have dodged both.

That's okay and exactly what I expected.

The only reason you posted this is it includes a vaugue reference to Stand your ground and the bush doctrine. both together are probably more than enough tp get you to drop your drawers and start beating furiously on that stub you call a penis.

 

[Katzndogz]

For every story of some nutcase, there are many more instances of gun owners who legitimately use their rights for its intended purposes.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Basically what this thread says is:

A man shot a guy in self defense in Florida, and since I can't call him racist, Bush did it.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Stand your ground applies only if there is imminent physical danger and a reasonable belief that one's life is in danger. That's all.

Apparently, the attorneys disagree with you.

it includes a vaugue reference to Stand your ground and the bush doctrine.

Its his defense for murder. Nothing vague about that.

I don't blame the rw's for being afraid to actually read and understand these articles and the incident. And of course, I never blame katzen for stating stupid and untrue opinions as though they are fact.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Basically what this thread says is:

A man shot a guy in self defense in Florida, and since I can't call him racist, Bush did it.

LOL

You obviously didn't read it either.

A man did not shoot a guy in self defense.

Sheesh. Why is it always the same ones who go off half cocked as though they have some frikken clue?

 

[Warrior102]

Why do Libberhoids hate whites ?
Fucking racist bigots

 

[TemplarKormac]

Basically what this thread says is:

A man shot a guy in self defense in Florida, and since I can't call him racist, Bush did it.

LOL

You obviously didn't read it either.

A man did not shoot a guy in self defense.

Sheesh. Why is it always the same ones who go off half cocked as though they have some frikken clue?

I don't care to take your troll threads seriously, Lucky Numbskull. I care to devote my brainpower to more mature and thought engaging threads. You have an agenda to push, not a point to make. You hate guns, you hate Florida because Zimmerman used this same law to defend himself with a gun, and you hate Bush because his brother Jeb is governor there.

I don't need a "frikkun clue", LN, you're just easy.

 

[martybegan]

Stand your ground applies only if there is imminent physical danger and a reasonable belief that one's life is in danger. That's all.

Apparently, the attorneys disagree with you.

it includes a vaugue reference to Stand your ground and the bush doctrine.

Its his defense for murder. Nothing vague about that.

I don't blame the rw's for being afraid to actually read and understand these articles and the incident. And of course, I never blame katzen for stating stupid and untrue opinions as though they are fact.

Using a policy in the wrong way for a legal defense does not negate the benefit of the policy for those who use it the correct way.

And its his proposed defense for murder, which i doubt will work.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Stand your ground applies only if there is imminent physical danger and a reasonable belief that one's life is in danger. That's all.

Apparently, the attorneys disagree with you.

it includes a vaugue reference to Stand your ground and the bush doctrine.

Its his defense for murder. Nothing vague about that.

I don't blame the rw's for being afraid to actually read and understand these articles and the incident. And of course, I never blame katzen for stating stupid and untrue opinions as though they are fact.

Using a policy in the wrong way for a legal defense does not negate the benefit of the policy for those who use it the correct way.

And its his proposed defense for murder, which i doubt will work.

FINALLY ...

Someone actually reads at least part of one article before shooting his mouth off.

For an rw, this is VERY impressive.

 

[martybegan]

Apparently, the attorneys disagree with you.



Its his defense for murder. Nothing vague about that.

I don't blame the rw's for being afraid to actually read and understand these articles and the incident. And of course, I never blame katzen for stating stupid and untrue opinions as though they are fact.

Using a policy in the wrong way for a legal defense does not negate the benefit of the policy for those who use it the correct way.

And its his proposed defense for murder, which i doubt will work.

FINALLY ...

Someone actually reads at least part of one article before shooting his mouth off.

For an rw, this is VERY impressive.

Its still a stupid article, that has nothing to do with my right to bear arms, nor my right to not have to retreat when attacked in order to use deadly force.

 

[The Professor]

Bottom line: The man will either accept a plea deal or be convicted. That is how it should be and that is how it will be.

The only thing that makes this case newsworthy is his attorney's insane interpretation of the Bush Doctrine and "imminent" threat. There is no doubt that attorneys all over Florida are making jokes about this outrageous defense.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Basically what this thread says is:

A man shot a guy in self defense in Florida, and since I can't call him racist, Bush did it.

LOL

You obviously didn't read it either.

A man did not shoot a guy in self defense.

Sheesh. Why is it always the same ones who go off half cocked as though they have some frikken clue?

I don't care to take your troll threads seriously, Lucky Numbskull. I care to devote my brainpower to more mature and thought engaging threads. You have an agenda to push, not a point to make. You hate guns, you hate Florida because Zimmerman used this same law to defend himself with a gun, and you hate Bush because his brother Jeb is governor there.

I don't need a "frikkun clue", LN, you're just easy.

For the second time, I must say I am impressed by your honesty. Most people would not admit that they routinely make decisions while simultaneously refusing to learn anything about the issue.

In your case, ignorance really is bliss.

Carry on.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Bottom line: The man will either accept a plea deal or be convicted. That is how it should be and that is how it will be.

The only thing that makes this case newsworthy is his attorney's insane interpretation of the Bush Doctrine and "imminent" threat. There is no doubt that attorneys all over Florida are making jokes about this outrageous defense.

I don't know every attorney in Florida so I cannot speak to what they are joking about but I do agree that the case will end.

Thanks for your thoughtful and intelligent reply.

 

[The Gadfly]

Bottom line: The man will either accept a plea deal or be convicted. That is how it should be and that is how it will be.

The only thing that makes this case newsworthy is his attorney's insane interpretation of the Bush Doctrine and "imminent" threat. There is no doubt that attorneys all over Florida are making jokes about this outrageous defense.

I don't know every attorney in Florida so I cannot speak to what they are joking about but I do agree that the case will end.

Thanks for your thoughtful and intelligent reply.

Luddly, there's really nothing to see here. You know, (and one presumes the author of the article you linked knows), that when neither the facts nor the law are in his client's favor, a defense attorney is going to come up with a creative theory of the facts, the law, or both; it's what they do, when faced with the task of defending the indefensible. In this case, it would appear the defendant ambushed three men (all apparently unarmed) and fired (by my count) some thirty rounds. On the face of it, that is one hell of a lot of "pre-emption" in response to what appear to have been verbal threats, and absent some incredible backstory we don't yet know, I cannot imagine a judge and a jury concluding that those acts meet the criteria for any sort of self-defense; that's about as likely as you becoming a conservative. No earthshaking precedent is going to be set here; all we have is a lawyer defending his client, and possibly trying to make a bit of a name for himself in the process. (I am mildly amused to think that any practicing attorney would imagine the "Bush Doctrine" of American foreign policy has ANY application to the criminal laws of the state of Florida, but hey, when you have nothing, you might as well try anything, and he DID get the attention of at least TWO people (you and the author of the article), so maybe he was correct in assuming he had a few dolts among the populace who might buy the idea) Much ado about nothing, and you aren't quite stupid enough, or naive enough, to really believe otherwise, so please, spare us the faux outrage.