Stand Your Ground strikes again

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 8800
Joined: Sun May 20, 2012 3:24 pm

PostSat Dec 21, 2013 12:47 am » by *WillEase*


Florida Man Who Shot Acquaintance For Threatening To Beat Him Won’t Face Charges, Judge Rules

Image

A Florida judge dismissed murder charges under the state’s Stand Your Ground law for a man who shot dead a mentally ill acquaintance after he told him he was going to beat him up.
http://www.theledger.com/article/201312 ... c=pg&tc=ar

In a six-page order issued last week, Judge John K. Stargel said James Robert Wagner was immune from charges under the Stand Your Ground law that gained national notoriety after the death of Trayvon Martin. Under the law, Wagner had no duty to attempt retreat in any place he had a right to be before using deadly force anywhere he had a legal right to be.
http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/upl ... Order1.pdf

The man Wagner shot was Billy Ray Elkins, a tenant in a building where Wagner had been performing maintenance who his mother said has bipolar disorder. Wagner had some reason to worry about unpleasant encounters with Elkins. Wagner had heard from others that Elkins had a reputation for outbursts, including “loud obscenities,” gesturing wildly and aggressiveness. Elkins lived with his mother, who was called whenever he became aggressive, and was “usually able to calm Mr. Elkins down.”

A week before the incident, Wagner said he witnessed an outburst by Elkins when he went to his apartment to conduct an inspection with the property manager. Elkins temporarily blocked the two from leaving the apartment, but he let them go after Elkins called his mother. Elkins then followed Wagner to his car and threatened to beat him and “make you my bitch,” according to the order. Elkins’ mother later told Wagner that he should not return to the apartment, because Elkins might try to “beat the shit” out of him. There is no indication that Elkins contacted police at any point, and an officer told reporters at the time that there had been no reported disputes between the two men and was surprised the encounter turned deadly.
http://www.theledger.com/article/201101 ... ?p=2&tc=pg

A week later, Wagner was doing work outside another unit when Elkins pulled up in his car and allegedly mumbled something about running Elkins over with his car, began to drive away, and then drove forward again to say he was going to beat him up. There is a dispute about whether Elkins had begun to get out of his car, with a witness testifying that Elkins was sitting in the car with the door closed when he was shot, but a blood splatter analysis suggesting the door was partially open. Wagner pulled a gun out of his car and shot him dead.

Only after shooting Elkins, returning his gun to his car, and closing the car door did Wagner attempt to dial 911. This particular incident took place outside a school. At least one student and the principal witnessed the incident.

Given Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, the judge found that Wagner was justified because he had no duty to take other measures before immediately turning to his gun. Even prosecutors said they would not seek an appeal. The law allows defendants to seek immunity from charges before the trial begins. Granting that immunity means not just that Wagner cannot be convicted for the charge of second-degree murder; it also means he is immune from all criminal prosecution related to the shooting, and also be immune from a civil suit.

Florida lawmakers have continued to reject moves to repeal or limit the law, and have instead advanced a bill this year to expand Stand Your Ground immunity to warning shots.
Image

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 1439
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2013 2:16 am
Location: UNDER YOUR BED

PostSat Dec 21, 2013 2:24 am » by RATRODROB


Fck, its so wrong to take anothers life in the US and escape prosecution, there is such a thing as disarming or disabling an aggressive combatant, why not shoot them (if you HAVE to shoot at all) in a part of the body which will disable them instead of kill them.

Fck ive been threatened heaps of times by some fck wits, but it always been sorted without shooting them dead.

yeah, just fckn kill them, then they cant defend themselves in court



RRR
The more people i meet, the more i like my dog

Writer
Posts: 71
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 7:19 pm

PostSat Dec 21, 2013 6:35 am » by Bravo69


chest shot would be my 1st choice... I don't know... maybe I was brought up the wrong way ... I don't fuck with people in a threatening way. If you do, and get blown away... well -- that's a lick on ya pardner! Get real already

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 1439
Joined: Thu Jun 13, 2013 2:16 am
Location: UNDER YOUR BED

PostSat Dec 21, 2013 6:57 am » by RATRODROB


Bravo69 wrote:chest shot would be my 1st choice... I don't know... maybe I was brought up the wrong way ... I don't fuck with people in a threatening way. If you do, and get blown away... well -- that's a lick on ya pardner! Get real already






So are you sayin you would shoot someone in the chest if they were unarmed and just mouthin off.
That's what this is about, to stand your ground and shoot someone fckn dead even if they are un armed.

I would blow someones fckn head off if the situation were its either him or me, but really, when they are un armed you would just shoot them in the chest cause you were only threatened verbally.



RRR
The more people i meet, the more i like my dog

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 958
Joined: Tue Jul 07, 2009 11:28 pm

PostSat Dec 21, 2013 7:25 am » by Naranja


*WillEase* wrote:The man Wagner shot was Billy Ray Elkins, a tenant in a building where Wagner had been performing maintenance who his mother said has bipolar disorder. Wagner had some reason to worry about unpleasant encounters with Elkins. Wagner had heard from others that Elkins had a reputation for outbursts, including “loud obscenities,” gesturing wildly and aggressiveness. Elkins lived with his mother, who was called whenever he became aggressive, and was “usually able to calm Mr. Elkins down.”


Does not sound like typical bipolar traits, more like asperger or other type of autism, with a sprinkle of adhd and tourettes.
Image

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 1891
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 10:08 pm
Location: The outlet by the light switch

PostSat Dec 21, 2013 7:35 am » by Thebluecanary


RATRODROB wrote:Fck, its so wrong to take anothers life in the US and escape prosecution, there is such a thing as disarming or disabling an aggressive combatant, why not shoot them (if you HAVE to shoot at all) in a part of the body which will disable them instead of kill them.

Fck ive been threatened heaps of times by some fck wits, but it always been sorted without shooting them dead.

yeah, just fckn kill them, then they cant defend themselves in court



RRR


"Unarmed" could be debatable, though. It depends on whether or not the guy who did the shooting really felt like the man might run him over with the car, whether the man might have been in a position to actually do that (or seem like he was going to) and whether the man who did the shooting honestly felt like his life was being threatened by the man in the car. A car can be considered a deadly weapon and has been in the past.

I feel like Florida is playing fast and loose with the concept of a "stand your ground" law…which actually exists for a good reason. The real purpose of so called "stand your ground" laws is to protect people who have to use force on someone from civil liability. No matter what the news and the NAACP says, that's the bottom line of it. Say someone breaks into my home when I'm there; if you come into my house, I'm going to assume that you're coming in there to rape and/or kill me, and so I'm going to shoot you. Sorry, but that's just the way I was raised. I won't be shooting to wound you, either. So, before SYG, the burglar (assuming that I missed and hit him in the leg instead of the chest) could sue me in civil court for his pain and suffering and medical bills and lost income from being disabled now because I shot him in the leg. It could be argued that because I have a back door to my house, I didn't HAVE to shoot him, even though he broke in. I could have run away out the back door. Only if there was no safe way for me to get out of the house could I resort to using deadly force. That is what "duty to retreat" really means. Chances are pretty good that even before SYG I wouldn't have faced criminal charges for shooting the burglar (he was in my house, after all, and probably not there to sell me Girl Scout cookies) but I could be held liable for choosing to use force instead of retreat in a civil suit and actually have to pay for the upkeep of the burglar and his 99 children for the rest of his life. Even if I killed the burglar, his family could sue me for killing him because he really was such a nice good boy and an honor student and everything, and before SYG they could win. That's a slight oversimplification (SYG also extends the same protections to me in public, like in a parking lot or park) but that is pretty much how they explained it to me in my concealed carry class. That's what SYG means in my state; it seems like just Florida where it is interpreted as "Eh, fuck it, kill whoever you want."

States have had stand your ground laws for a long time. It has just been since that douchecanoe Zimmerman tried to claim it as his defense that people have started tearing their hair about it and making it the new boogeyman law.
Remember, in a real conspiracy, all players are pawns regardless of their rank.
-----Christopher Hyatt

Conspirator
Posts: 1537
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 10:29 pm
Location: canada

PostSat Dec 21, 2013 11:29 am » by Mydogma


RATRODROB wrote:Fck, its so wrong to take anothers life in the US and escape prosecution, there is such a thing as disarming or disabling an aggressive combatant, why not shoot them (if you HAVE to shoot at all) in a part of the body which will disable them instead of kill them.

Fck ive been threatened heaps of times by some fck wits, but it always been sorted without shooting them dead.

yeah, just fckn kill them, then they cant defend themselves in court



RRR

:cheers:
If you don't wake up, Your the problem, not the thief...www.cattledum.com

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 330
Joined: Sat Jun 15, 2013 5:50 pm

PostSat Dec 21, 2013 11:58 am » by handy4321


I guess that's it, the cat's meow! We no longer have to look to color, gender, ethnicity or any of those other, obvious derisions!! Before long, we'll have no problem tearing up our own reflection in the mirror, dirt bastards!!!! :lol:

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 693
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 11:36 pm

PostSat Dec 21, 2013 5:25 pm » by Domeika


Contrary to popular opinion, I don't see a problem with this.

The guy threatened him repeatedly and there were witnesses to that effect. He even threatened to run him over. (And BTW.... that satement alone says the attacker was coherent enough to have a drivers license.) When he went to make good on his threats, he got shot.

Being unarmed has NOTHING to do with it. Being armed is your protection to NOT take a beat down by a lunatic and possibly lose your life, and the key word here is "possibly". I carry a weapon so that "possibly" falls in my favor, not the attacker's. If they bring fists to a gunfight, then they made a grave error.

Also, and I've said this before, take a run at a cop while stark naked and obviously unarmed and see how fast they unload a clip into you. Try it. No takers? I didn't think so. I and others have the right to protect ourselves just as much as any cop, if not moreso.

And as far as where the fatal shot landed, as opposed to shooting to maim? It only works like that in the movies. In a threatening situation it's all about putting steel on target before the other guys does, or stabs you, or beats you, or whatever.....it's called self-preservation and I'll shoot every thug on this planet before I let one lay a single finger on me or mine.

Of course if it makes you feel better you could always make yourself available as a professional victim to guarantee that no perpetrators are hurt while committing a crime, and I think they would really, really appreciate that. Me? I'll send flowers.

But is the attacker being unarmed really a relevant question at all? It shouldn't be, but the media is looking for any opportunity to play on heartstrings whilst playing down the facts......all for the goal of gun control with the end game being a total gun ban.

Don't fall for it. Think for yourselves and keep emotion out of it.

:cheers:

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 1891
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 10:08 pm
Location: The outlet by the light switch

PostSat Dec 21, 2013 7:35 pm » by Thebluecanary


Domeika wrote:Contrary to popular opinion, I don't see a problem with this.

The guy threatened him repeatedly and there were witnesses to that effect. He even threatened to run him over. (And BTW.... that satement alone says the attacker was coherent enough to have a drivers license.) When he went to make good on his threats, he got shot.

Being unarmed has NOTHING to do with it. Being armed is your protection to NOT take a beat down by a lunatic and possibly lose your life, and the key word here is "possibly". I carry a weapon so that "possibly" falls in my favor, not the attacker's. If they bring fists to a gunfight, then they made a grave error.

Also, and I've said this before, take a run at a cop while stark naked and obviously unarmed and see how fast they unload a clip into you. Try it. No takers? I didn't think so. I and others have the right to protect ourselves just as much as any cop, if not moreso.

And as far as where the fatal shot landed, as opposed to shooting to maim? It only works like that in the movies. In a threatening situation it's all about putting steel on target before the other guys does, or stabs you, or beats you, or whatever.....it's called self-preservation and I'll shoot every thug on this planet before I let one lay a single finger on me or mine.

Of course if it makes you feel better you could always make yourself available as a professional victim to guarantee that no perpetrators are hurt while committing a crime, and I think they would really, really appreciate that. Me? I'll send flowers.

But is the attacker being unarmed really a relevant question at all? It shouldn't be, but the media is looking for any opportunity to play on heartstrings whilst playing down the facts......all for the goal of gun control with the end game being a total gun ban.

Don't fall for it. Think for yourselves and keep emotion out of it.

:cheers:


I mostly agree with you. It is possible to kill someone without a weapon, or to beat them so severely that they suffer from the effects for the rest of their lives. Depending on where you live, the law may or may not protect you if you choose to use deadly force on someone who didn't also have a gun (or a knife, or something.) The "fear for your life" is the important factor, and since this guy was shot while actually sitting behind the wheel of his car, I'm guessing the shooter feared that he was about to be run over.

As far as shooting to wound..that's pretty laughable I agree. It's not like the movies where everyone is a trick shot and we're popping off perfect head shots or shooting the bad guy in the foot to make him "dance." A real confrontation like that takes place in what I'm sure feels like a split second. And no matter how fancy I can get with my shooting on the range, if it's my life on the line a smart person aims at center body mass and empties the gun. Getting shot in the leg, or the arm, or even once in the body might not stop an assailant, depending on how big they are, how big your bullets are, and whether or not they're suffering from some kind of mental illness or on some kind of drug that is pumping up their adrenaline. It's like the old saw that a woman about to be raped should kick her assailant in the balls…that might work, or it might just piss him off and make it worse for you in the long run. Better to break his knee…better yet to shoot him.

I appreciate the protections that stand your ground offers me; if I'm out walking my dog at the park and some scumbag jumps out and tries to rape me, I no longer have to try to run away like something out of a bad horror movie. I can protect myself on the spot. I would imagine that for every "stand your ground" horror story that gets blown out of proportion by the media, there are 20 cases where SYG saved someone's life or prevented a crime victim from having to work the rest of his/her life to pay the bills of the person who victimized them. As far as whether someone is armed or not…in certain cases it might not make a difference. I'm tall for a woman and I've had some self defense training…but there are plenty of dudes out there that outweigh me by a hundred pounds and could do enough damage to me with their bare hands that I could be in fear for my life no matter how "unarmed" they were. Especially in a military town, where a large percentage of the population has had training that normal people don't have.

I agree that the media blows these cases up in a negative way to try to advance a gun control agenda that I am unable to get behind. If the majority of the people who are crying and marching trying to get stand your ground laws repealed would instead turn that energy back into their own communities, we might not need to live in a country where we feel the need to be armed.
Remember, in a real conspiracy, all players are pawns regardless of their rank.
-----Christopher Hyatt


Next

  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook