THIS IS SOME BULL ****

[GeauxLSU]

Of course they are going to try to explain away his actions and spin the story in the best possible way for him to be justifiable.

Why would multiple news sources do that?
The only thing that bothers me is a cop (of all people) automatically ASSUMING that a citizen doesn't have the right to use his gun when he's getting attacked and says he felt his life was in danger. Particularly in a state with stand your ground laws. I agree, you have the conviction to bolster your assumptions. Do you think Zimmerman should have been found guilty?

 

[TattooedGunner]

I guess this is why I don't hang out at bars. Too many damn people acting dumb all the time. The few times I've been to bars it's just been a bunch of dumbasses getting drunk and acting stupid.

I don't mind getting drunk and acting stupid, I've done it myself I just don't like to be around a bunch of unknown people when I do it.

More power to you if that's your thing.

 

[Spiderman11]

So I'll change my mind and reply . . lol.

Why multiple "news" sources? . . . because the punishment is shocking. Had it been probation or "1 year to serve", you would have never heard anything about it.

I'm not assuming anything about citizens and their rights to defend themselves. The law on the use of deadly force is the same for LEO as it is the factory worker or office manager. The problem arises in what I believe to be the using of a weapon as a crutch to avoid using critical thinking skills. Very similar to a member who posted on here about a domestic dispute happening outside. He then grabbed his gun and went to confront the person. Then what? You can say all day long that you were "in fear for your life." Those are the "correct" words to say. But, if that is found not to be "objectively reasonable" then your screwed. Just because we all carry a gun on a regular basis does not mean that is what we automatically need to resort to resolve a conflict. (Sometimes the resolution is walking away, especially when you're not involved to start with!) This guy didn't just go back to a large fight, he went and got a gun and then went back to a large fight. He was a combat veteran, he knew what he was doing when he got that gun out. Did he have it in his hand? Was it tucked in his pants? Did he have a level III retention holster? How did he go from getting punched to the ground to shooting in a mob of people? We don't know. He might not have "wanted" to get involved but he put himself in the position to get involved. He went from being an alleged "bystander" to the most extreme fighter out there. I've been punched before, I haven't felt the need to kill anyone for it.

Zimmerman . . . that's a whole other story . . . and he's an idiot.

 

[Eshrote]

I read it. I'll use my vast skills of asking questions that may or may not have any significance to anything and see if we can pick apart his defense.
1 - He thought his life was in danger: Prosecutor - Did your friends, in a similar situation believe their lives were in danger. And if they did, why didn't they go out to get the weapon?
2 - Was anyone severely injured or killed..other than by your weapon?

3 - You saying you took the gun cause car is unlocked is...bhaaawaaa.. you're full of crap. Sorry your honor, he ran out of excuses and didn't think that one out and I found it funny.

4 - What were the condition of your friends when you walked back in with the gun. Were they in mortal danger?

5 - Did you call the police before you went back in?

Personally, as for self protection, I see it kinda like the Running of The Bulls..you step in, get gored..you can't sue the bulls. I do think he has grounds for protecting his friends..if he can honestly prove his buddies were in mortal danger..which is a good stretch to prove else there'd be a lot of dead people in pretty much every bar across the country when a fight breaks out.

 

[MacTavish]

The article says that Giles was on active duty at the time. His photo indicates that he is an officer in the USAF. If the judge and other high ranking officials really do feel that the sentence is wrong then why haven't they appealed to the Gov. to pardon this man?

 

[armedplinkster89]

That is a load of crap!

 

[Comanche]

Now this is the type of guy that Jesse Jackson and Al " I want to sit at the right hand of God", Sharpton need to be defending.

 

[RamRoddoc]

Anyone - a cop, this guy, Zimmerman, whoever, that is punched from behind, beaten to the ground, and is in fear for their life - has a right to fire to stop the threat. He fired two shots, with one hitting the leg, and that was it. He stopped the threat. He did not get up and continue shooting. He never should've been charged.

This is the absolute truth, as was if he got his ass beat, got a gun and returned and shot (retribution) then imprisoned is the absolute truth.

Attacking an armed man who is not committing any crime from behind is a poor decision. The situation was life threatening if the attacker had disarmed the young Airman then the story may ended differently. The attacker was very lucky.

Mas Ayoob describes this particular situation and has articulated to juries. Based on the facts given by more than one news source this young man should have been protected by castle doctrine outside the home (Stand Your Ground) and was enacted to protect a victim in just this type of incident. But it failed him due to an aggressive prosecutor seeking fame? and conviction rates and an ignorant or biased jury.

First he should have never been charged as it meets the criteria for lawful self-defense and second it should have never made it to a jury trial.

But this is speculation based on facts of a news station........

 

[RamRoddoc]

Absolutely.


No. The law provides very strict guidelines: A person is justified in using force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm only if he or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury to himself or herself or a third person or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

Being "not safe" does not allow for deadly force; it is reserved for only the threat of death and great bodily injury and to prevent forcible felonies. None of this was present. The other person committed misdemeanor battery (yes, I'm using Georgia law as we should all mostly live in Georgia and I can't quote Florida law) and last I checked, a misdemeanor is not punishable by death. A "punch" does not reasonably translate into shooting.

Here's another quote from another source:
He tried to move but his unknown attacker struck him from behind, at which point he fell to the ground. With so many people fighting around him and his attacker close by, Michael fired his weapon to get away from the fighting.

He feared that the angry mob would turn on him and he would be killed or seriously injured. He fired a warning shot to get away from his attackers, and is now serving a 25 year sentence in Florida.

http://www.thecoli.com/threads/us-m...efense-in-florida-sentenced-to-25-yrs.148546/

Being attacked by an individual in angry mob can constitute a forcible felony. If it was a single 150 lb. guy attacking (with no weapon) a 185 lb. serviceman and he shot him, then we have a problem. Did the mob have the capacity to kill a single man? If so then an appropriate response would include a lethal one if the victim thought his life was at risk.

He shot his attacker (once), yes others were struck with "fragments" and he stopped firing once the threat was neutralized. If he continued to fire despite the attacker/s breaking contact then the claims may bear weight:


"Reckless disregard . . . shot a "warning shot" into an angry mob." These are the prosecutor's words designed to convict, not necessarily what occurred.

 

[Shemp]

And if it had been an LEO in his place people on here would be screaming for his head and applauding the sentence because why would anyone use a weapon on an unarmed person?? What about all his special training?? I'm pretty sure they teach hand-to-hand in the Air Force . . . he got mad and wanted to teach someone a lesson as he "looked for his friends" ... Got a little more then he hoped for I think .... Then again that's just my opinion . . .

You're pretty wrong.