Florida Man Kills 3-Cites Stand Your Ground and Bush Doctrine
Read Time:46 Second
William Woodward, 44, a Florida man who shot three people in a surprise attack during a Labor Day barbecue has an unusual two-pronged defense: His lawyers cite both the state’s “Stand Your Ground” law and the “Bush Doctrine,” reports Florida Today.
told police that the men had been threatening him and his family for a month, and so he got them before they could get him. The Bush Doctrine relates to the pre-emptive nature of the attack, as in the Iraq invasion.
Woodward’s attorneys are calling for a jury to decide whether the charges should be dismissed under Stand Your Ground. The Titusville man “exercised his right under Florida law to defend himself and his family that night,” says their motion, referring to the earlier threats. Two of the shooting victims died and the third survived despite being hit 11 times.
Happy
0 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
0 %
Surprise
0 %
0
0
The article forgot to mention whether the victims were black. Everybody knows that if a black person makes a threat in any circumstance, the black person is to be feared, and stand your ground is reasonable. Hell, even if that black person DOESN’T make a DIRECT threat – you know, he/she’s just black – then stand your ground is reasonable. Just ask George…
“Everbody knows” may be the preamble to more bad arguments than any other phrase. Yes, to many people black people, particularly young males are to be feared. Statistically all young males account for the lion’s share of violent crimes and the kind of prejudice that causes one to suspect some number of young males dressed to look threatening, are in fact threatening, but that’s how our minds work.
The more committed we are to a certain opinion, the less likely we are to relinquish it even when confronted with contradictory evidence. Some retreat into a comfortable fantasy and seek others who support it. I think this is an example.
The repetition of the idea that Zimmerman was released because of the SYG law is one of those instances that remind me so much of the Denialism I accuse Conservatives of. He wasn’t. His defense never cited the law because it didn’t apply to his actions.
Apparently those who don’t like that law need to sooth the cognitive dissonance by pretending otherwise – perhaps because admission of error would wound egos or call into question the need to be right all the time. Endless repetition, with or without snark does not validate an erroneous statement.
If Zimmerman was more likely to have seen the kid as an intruder because he was black, he still wasn’t entitled by any law to pursue or confront him or interfere with him. Zimmerman is a jerk who shouldn’t own a gun, but he’s a poor choice for a poster boy for those who need to make noise about how much prejudice exists in America.
Sarcasm or mockery based on – ah – less than true statements? That’s too Limbaughian for me, sorry. It’s a serious matter.
A relationship to density seems supportable although I don’t think it’s the only factor. I wonder about observations like how El Paso, despite a low level of gun control is the safest city in the US at the moment while Juarez where it’s hard to legally own a gun is a killing field. Enforcement plays a role — and then there’s Chicago, currently our murder capital, but only in those neighborhoods where gang activity is high.
It’s complex but I certainly think most of our efforts are wasted and some new thinking is in order.
Here in Brazil, it is also very difficult for a private citizen to legally own any firearm, especially a handgun. Yet, criminals have no problem getting anything they want and frequently are better armed than the police.
Places with high drug gang activity, like Rio and São Paulo are also dangerous and have high rates of murders by gun.
Even hear in João Pessoa, where it is relatively quiet, there are several killings a month. Mostly, it is criminals shooting each other over territory control. Those often do not even make the news.
Actually Florida has always been a fairly safe state compared to many others. This is primarily due to demographics if nothing else. While most people think that a high immigration population leads to a high crime level it actually does not. Immigrants, both legal and illegal tend to go out of their way to avoid attention. The higher violence rates tend to be in established large cities with a dense population of low income persons. Studies have shown that population density correlates with violent crime.
Thanks professor 🙂
Oh, dearie, dearie me! I forgot to put those pesky {sarcasm}{/sarcasm} tags in my comment. Some people just can’t seem to function without them.
Easy to say, but of course gun violence in Florida is at something like an all time low and so to say it is or is becoming a leading factor is to put it politely hyperbole. There is far too much hyperbole in any discussion of guns, racism and politics.
I’m still hearing programmed giggling about how allowing concealed carry is going to result in a bloodbath even though gun violence in Florida has declined in every year since that went into effect.
Florida is a far safer state in terms of the likelihood of getting shot than highly gun controlled places like Chicago — and El Paso Texas where everyone is packing is currently the safest city in America.
As I said, few people will ever get away with ambushing someone and claiming self defense, either under the Bush Doctrine, prior law or SYG, while quite a number will legitimately use a weapon and have their entire lives ruined by the cost of defending against a murder charge.
I’m much more upset that a Florida woman recently got 20 years for “firing a warning shot” to keep a brutal attacker, against whom she had a restraining order, away from her and her children. SYG is supposed to protect such people and once again, that law had nothing to do with George Zimmerman’s defense — no matter how much that misrepresentation has become a liberal shibboleth. And where is the liberal concern about that violation of basic human rights? Well I’m listening and not hearing a damned thing.
Could it be that we’ve become the gun control parrot party and not the civil rights party?
Only two of the men died, not three.
Instead of “Welcome to Florida”, the signs at the state line should read: “Surgeon General’s Warning: Entering Florida Could Be Hazardous To Your Health.”
Lead poisoning is becoming a leading factor in Florida mortality.
When I read about the 88 year old WWII veteran, wounded in battle being beat to death, I had to wonder what would have happened if had defended himself with a firearm. Would he have lost everything defending himself in court like Bernie Getz and a host of others? We will never know, but it seems to me that someone has a right to self defense that isn’t well served by current law in many states.
But when I read stories like this – and worse the ones where very, very questionable shootings are justified by odd interpretations of SYG, I have to wonder. Surely the threat of “Imminent death” doesn’t apply here and of course the “Bush doctrine,” an ex post facto excuse for having attacked a country for having weapons it didn’t actually have is not part of US criminal law. But where there are lawyers, there are attempts to use the law in new and novel ways to generate fees and publicity.
Apparently very few SYG defenses have held up in court, but public perception that it’s really a form of hunting license is no less ‘batshitful’ in my opinion than citing a foreign policy decision as grounds for murdering your neighbors.
Hit 11 times and lived? What was he using, a nerf gun?