Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Aug 8, 2013, 07:46 AM   #1
rdowns
macrumors Penryn
 
rdowns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
No Homicide Charges For Teen Who Shot And Killed A Man With An Illegal Gun, SYG

Yeah, this law needs no changing.


Quote:
Florida prosecutors said Tuesday they would not file homicide charges against a 17-year-old who fatally shot a community choir director in the face, citing the state’s Stand Your Ground law.

In a memo released Tuesday, prosecutors explained that Tyrone Pierson was justified in using deadly force when he encountered Julius Jerome Jacobs on the street, and Jacobs was wielding a large stick. They concluded that even though Pierson possessed the gun illegally, and even though his friends successfully escaped the confrontation by simply walking away, he was immunized by Florida’s Stand Your Ground law, which eliminates any duty to attempt retreat first.
Quote:
The memo goes on to explain that Pierson qualifies for immunity from any homicide charges even though he illegally possessed the gun as a minor without a concealed carry permit. Prosecutors cite a recent Florida appeals court decision that concluded, even though the famed Stand Your Ground provision passed by the Florida legislature in 2005 prohibits those who are engaged in “unlawful activity” from claiming Stand Your Ground immunity, that another provision amended at the same time authorizes the use of deadly force in similar circumstances with no explicit exception for “unlawful activity.”
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...essed-the-gun/
__________________
If your religion is worth killing for, please start with yourself.

Last edited by rdowns; Aug 8, 2013 at 07:55 AM. Reason: Added URL
rdowns is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2013, 07:51 AM   #2
waa1futs
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
...

Last edited by waa1futs; Aug 8, 2013 at 08:19 AM. Reason: answered my own question
waa1futs is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2013, 07:56 AM   #3
Droidrage729
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
There's exceptions to all rules. If this kid was defending himself and or his family from a threat it would be justified. If he was carrying a firearm or otherwise being reckless then it would be an unlawful carry of a firearms. I've seen countless times in my law enforcement experience and in other jurisdictions on police shows as the first 48 where a suspect was justified in the shooting but still eats the possession of a firearm by minor / convicted felon etc. I am so happy to hear a situation where race is not mentioned I have no idea what the races are or could care less. Kid defended himself that's what firearms are made DEFENSE.
Droidrage729 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2013, 07:56 AM   #4
Shrink
macrumors Demi-God
 
Shrink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: New England, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdowns View Post
Yeah, this law needs no changing.
The stick was a threat.

He could have walked away like his friends.

He had the right to defend himself.

He possessed the gun illegally.

The use of the gun was justified by the threat.

He had a right to possess a gun under the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment is not absolute.

They want to take our guns away.

The pro gun folks are nuts.

The anti-gun are are liberal wussies.


Did I miss anything?
__________________
Two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe. -- Albert Einstein
Shrink is online now   9 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2013, 07:58 AM   #5
waa1futs
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrink View Post
Did I miss anything?
You took all my lines!
waa1futs is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2013, 08:03 AM   #6
xShane
macrumors 6502a
 
xShane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by Droidrage729 View Post
There's exceptions to all rules. If this kid was defending himself and or his family from a threat it would be justified. If he was carrying a firearm or otherwise being reckless then it would be an unlawful carry of a firearms. I've seen countless times in my law enforcement experience and in other jurisdictions on police shows as the first 48 where a suspect was justified in the shooting but still eats the possession of a firearm by minor / convicted felon etc. I am so happy to hear a situation where race is not mentioned I have no idea what the races are or could care less. Kid defended himself that's what firearms are made DEFENSE.
He had the option to retreat, but didn't take it. It wasn't true self defense. Killing someone should always be a last resort, last ditch effort, where it is your only option, with no possibility to get away from the situation.
__________________
Macbook Pro 15" 2.6, 8GB, 750GB, 1GB VRAM
"Everything for the people, nothing by the people."

"Be the change that you wish to see in the world."
xShane is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2013, 08:03 AM   #7
nozebleed
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrink View Post
The stick was a threat.

He could have walked away like his friends.

He had the right to defend himself.

He possessed the gun illegally.

The use of the gun was justified by the threat.

He had a right to possess a gun under the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment is not absolute.

They want to take our guns away.

The pro gun folks are nuts.

The anti-gun are are liberal wussies.


Did I miss anything?
yeah you missed the one major thing - thinkprogress.org
nozebleed is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2013, 08:07 AM   #8
niuniu
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: A man of the people. The right sort of people.
'Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it.'
niuniu is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2013, 08:14 AM   #9
PracticalMac
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrink View Post

The pro gun folks are nuts.

The anti-gun are are liberal wussies.


Did I miss anything?
Nail on head.



Surprised teen not charged with illegally possessing gun.
__________________
FireWire 1394 Intelligent network guaranteed data transfer, 1500mA power, Ethernet compatible
Read: 160 files, 650MB total, FW400 70% faster then USB2
Write: 160 files, 650MB total, FW400 48% faster
PracticalMac is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2013, 08:17 AM   #10
Tomorrow
macrumors 603
 
Tomorrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Always a day away
I would hope he would at least be charged for possessing the gun illegally.
__________________
I would scream just to be heard, as if yelling at the stars - I was bleeding just to feel.
You would never say a word, kept me reaching in the dark - always something to conceal.
Tomorrow is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2013, 08:32 AM   #11
rdowns
Thread Starter
macrumors Penryn
 
rdowns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomorrow View Post
I would hope he would at least be charged for possessing the gun illegally.
He is being charged with carrying a concealed firearm and possession of a firearm by a minor.

It's in the source article linked to in the story. I didn't use it because the ****ers make you click through 5 pages to read the story.
__________________
If your religion is worth killing for, please start with yourself.
rdowns is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2013, 09:01 AM   #12
PracticalMac
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdowns View Post
He is being charged with carrying a concealed firearm and possession of a firearm by a minor.

It's in the source article linked to in the story. I didn't use it because the ****ers make you click through 5 pages to read the story.
Great!

Thanks for saving us trouble.
__________________
FireWire 1394 Intelligent network guaranteed data transfer, 1500mA power, Ethernet compatible
Read: 160 files, 650MB total, FW400 70% faster then USB2
Write: 160 files, 650MB total, FW400 48% faster
PracticalMac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2013, 09:20 AM   #13
Tomorrow
macrumors 603
 
Tomorrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Always a day away
Quote:
Originally Posted by xShane View Post
He had the option to retreat, but didn't take it. It wasn't true self defense. Killing someone should always be a last resort, last ditch effort, where it is your only option, with no possibility to get away from the situation.
The assailant was swinging a stick at him and trying to run him down with his vehicle. Was he expected to try to outrun the vehicle first?

The law is pretty clear, and it sounds to me like he didn't break the law in that regard.
__________________
I would scream just to be heard, as if yelling at the stars - I was bleeding just to feel.
You would never say a word, kept me reaching in the dark - always something to conceal.
Tomorrow is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2013, 09:47 AM   #14
aerok
macrumors 65816
 
aerok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
This is much clearer than what happened with Zimmerman. As much as I hate the SYG law, it does sadly exist and it makes sense that he got acquitted because the victim was trying to run them over with his SUV.

I still think the better option would have been to run away.
__________________
Kangmlee Photography Blog
Macbook Pro 13 - iPhone 5S - iPad Air - Samsung Note 8
aerok is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2013, 09:51 AM   #15
ucfgrad93
macrumors G5
 
ucfgrad93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Colorado
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomorrow View Post
The assailant was swinging a stick at him and trying to run him down with his vehicle. Was he expected to try to outrun the vehicle first?

The law is pretty clear, and it sounds to me like he didn't break the law in that regard.
Agreed. If that is what happened, I have no problem with the teen not being charged with homicide.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rdowns View Post
He is being charged with carrying a concealed firearm and possession of a firearm by a minor.
These sound like appropriate charges to me.
ucfgrad93 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2013, 10:01 AM   #16
dec.
macrumors 6502a
 
dec.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Toronto
Why would you try to run away if it's easier (and legal) to put a bullet in the guys head?
__________________
Apple/Win/Linux stuff
dec. is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2013, 10:10 AM   #17
Tomorrow
macrumors 603
 
Tomorrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Always a day away
Quote:
Originally Posted by xShane View Post
Yet his friends managed to escape the confrontation by simply walking away?
The whole "shooting the bad guy" thing kinda helped them get away, wouldn't you say?
__________________
I would scream just to be heard, as if yelling at the stars - I was bleeding just to feel.
You would never say a word, kept me reaching in the dark - always something to conceal.
Tomorrow is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2013, 10:20 AM   #18
mrkramer
macrumors 601
 
mrkramer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Somewhere
Quote:
Originally Posted by Droidrage729 View Post
You should expect this as a possible outcome when you attack someone
From the sound of how this law is written you should expect this as a possible outcome when you walk down the street in Florida.
__________________
"Jesus was the first socialist, the first to seek a better life for mankind." -Mikhail Gorbachev
mrkramer is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2013, 10:20 AM   #19
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
I'm confused by this part of the OPs linked article ...

Quote:
In a pointed analysis that makes clear Pierson would have been expected to attempt retreat before Stand Your Ground, prosecutors conclude that Pierson is now immune. The memo, obtained in full by ThinkProgress, explains:
Prior to 2005 the law in the State would require Mr. Pierson to avoid the use of deadly force by “retreating” if he could do so without endangering himself further. Under traditional self defense rules, Mr. Pierson may have been required to retreat as Mr. Smith and Mr. Crim were able to safely do. Given the other two people with Mr. Pierson avoided the conflict by fleeing, it is not unreasonable to assume Mr. Pierson could have done also. However, in 2005, the Florida Legislature substantially amended chapter 776, Florida Statutes, by a series of enactments collectively known as the Stand Your Ground Law. [...]
In that under the current law, Mr. Pierson had no duty to retreat, Mr. Jacob’s actions make Mr. Pierson immune from criminal prosecution for any murder charges stemming from the death of Mr Jacobs.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...essed-the-gun/
Yet here is the text of 2004 Florida Statutes, Chapter 776, JUSTIFIABLE USE OF FORCE ...

Quote:
776.012 Use of force in defense of person.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against such other's imminent use of unlawful force. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1188, ch. 97-102.

776.031 Use of force in defense of others.--A person is justified in the use of force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or terminate such other's trespass on, or other tortious or criminal interference with, either real property other than a dwelling or personal property, lawfully in his or her possession or in the possession of another who is a member of his or her immediate family or household or of a person whose property he or she has a legal duty to protect. However, the person is justified in the use of deadly force only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony.

History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1189, ch. 97-102.

776.041 Use of force by aggressor.--The justification described in the preceding sections of this chapter is not available to a person who:

(1) Is attempting to commit, committing, or escaping after the commission of, a forcible felony; or

(2) Initially provokes the use of force against himself or herself, unless:

(a) Such force is so great that the person reasonably believes that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that he or she has exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force which is likely to cause death or great bodily harm to the assailant; or

(b) In good faith, the person withdraws from physical contact with the assailant and indicates clearly to the assailant that he or she desires to withdraw and terminate the use of force, but the assailant continues or resumes the use of force.

History.--s. 13, ch. 74-383; s. 1190, ch. 97-102.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/...776/ch0776.htm
Nowhere in these statutes is there any mention of a "requirement to retreat".

So I'm confused.

Is the article wrong? Or is that assertion based on an application of Florida law even though it's not actually stated in the law?
citizenzen is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2013, 10:28 AM   #20
skottichan
macrumors 6502a
 
skottichan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Columbus, OH
Send a message via AIM to skottichan Send a message via MSN to skottichan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomorrow View Post
The whole "shooting the bad guy" thing kinda helped them get away, wouldn't you say?
According to the article, his friends retreated before Mr Jacobs was shot and killed.
skottichan is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2013, 10:54 AM   #21
Zombie Acorn
macrumors 65816
 
Zombie Acorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto, Ontario
If you are being attacked you have the right to defend yourself. You should not have the obligation to retreat first.
__________________
--2.6 C2Q 4gb DDR3 GTX 260-Win 7--
--2.0 CE Macbook Alum-Leopard--
Zombie Acorn is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2013, 11:09 AM   #22
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn View Post
If you are being attacked you have the right to defend yourself. You should not have the obligation to retreat first.
As demonstrated in the text of the law—even before SYG—there isn't.
citizenzen is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2013, 11:37 AM   #23
Zombie Acorn
macrumors 65816
 
Zombie Acorn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
As demonstrated in the text of the law—even before SYG—there isn't.
Well then lets stop talking about his friend who retreated so he should have been able to do the same.
__________________
--2.6 C2Q 4gb DDR3 GTX 260-Win 7--
--2.0 CE Macbook Alum-Leopard--
Zombie Acorn is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2013, 11:53 AM   #24
skottichan
macrumors 6502a
 
skottichan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Columbus, OH
Send a message via AIM to skottichan Send a message via MSN to skottichan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zombie Acorn View Post
Well then lets stop talking about his friend who retreated so he should have been able to do the same.
Yes, let's instead talk about the fact that the state of Florida allowed the murders of men that could have been more easily dealt with in a non-lethal way.
skottichan is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Aug 8, 2013, 12:04 PM   #25
Sydde
macrumors 68000
 
Sydde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by xShane View Post
He had the option to retreat, but didn't take it. It wasn't true self defense. Killing someone should always be a last resort, last ditch effort, where it is your only option, with no possibility to get away from the situation.
The problem is, the opposite of self-defense would be some degree of murder. The state has to show beyond a reasonable doubt that it was murder (burden of proof and all that). The guy with the gun (living witness) has a pretty low bar to jump to avoid prosecution – with SYG, it seems as though "he was making me nervous" is all one really needs. As long as these laws are in place, the trigger happiness will only escalate.
__________________
You got to be a spirit. You can't be no ghost.
Sydde is offline   1 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Driver who struck and killed teen on bike sues her victum and his family MacNut Politics, Religion, Social Issues 68 Apr 29, 2014 04:06 PM
No charges for Michigan cops who fatally shot homeless man over stolen coffee jnpy!$4g3cwk Politics, Religion, Social Issues 9 Feb 26, 2014 08:16 PM
Outrage follows probation for teen who killed four in crash rdowns Politics, Religion, Social Issues 51 Dec 14, 2013 05:31 PM
Florida Man Cites SYG and Bush Doctrine- Shot 3 People rdowns Politics, Religion, Social Issues 24 Sep 8, 2013 09:47 AM
Harmonizing/Equalizing Shot Gun Audio Dukey Digital Audio 2 Sep 1, 2012 01:45 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:58 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC