Tweet
A pedestrian walks in front of a car and the driver stands his ground.
(Photo: Brian Bennett / Flickr)
In Arizona, Cordell Jude shot and killed a mentally disabled pedestrian named Daniel Adkins. Mr. Jude claimed that as he entered a Taco Bell drive-through, Adkins walked in front of his car. When Jude yelled at the man to move, the man came to the driver’s side of the car and waved something that looked to Jude to be a “metal pipe”, but did not hit the car or anyone in the car. Jude, who is black, claims that Adkins, who was hispanic and who lived with his mother, “raised his arms” as if to swing again. Jude then shot Adkins in the chest and killed him.
The ‘metal pipe’ was a dog leash. But still. Mr. Jude had every right to stand his ground, apparently, so he went ahead and shot and killed the mentally ill pedestrian who walked in front of his car. No charges have been filed, even though the police report recommended that second degree murder charges be filed.
Adkins died, holding his dog’s colorful green leash, in his right hand. The officers who responded to the scene found the dog still at his side. They did not find a pipe, bat or other weapon.
Jude said he didn’t drive away from the confrontation because the dog was in the way.
Was Mr. Jude in imminent danger of being killed or suffering serious bodily harm, and was he justified in killing the pedestrian who walked in front of his car?
Arizona’s stand your ground law.
A group of teenagers in an SUV drives away from a verbal altercation. A man stands his ground and fires into the SUV that is moving away from him, killing a 15-year-old.
In Louisiana, 21-year-old Byron Thomas started shooting into an SUV full of kids that was driving away after a verbal altercation over marijuana. Fifteen-year-old Jamonta Miles was shot in the head and killed. A stun gun and some fireworks, but no firearms, were found in the SUV; Miles was unarmed. Byron Thomas claimed self-defense and the grand jury cleared him. There will be no indictment.
Although the SUV was allegedly driving away when Thomas opened fire, Lafourche Parish Sheriff Craig Webre said to local media that as far as Thomas knew, someone could have jumped out of the vehicle with a gun. Thomas, said the sheriff, had “decided to stand his ground.”
Was Thomas acting in self-defense when he shot and killed a 15-year-old eighth-grader in a vehicle that was moving away from Thomas? Is it enough to say, “You just never know. One of them could have had a gun?” In Louisiana, that is enough, apparently, to justify killing.
Louisiana’s Justifiable Homicide law
20-year-old man in Wisconsin killed for being on a porch..
Police were called to a neighborhood in Wisconsin because of a noisy underage drinking party. A man at the party, 20-year-old Bo Morrison, left the party to avoid confrontation with police, and hid on a porch at a different home in the neighborhood. Morrison was shot and killed by the homeowner, and the killing is justifiable under Wisconsin’s new castle doctrine that Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker signed into law.
In Florida, a man acted well within his self-defense rights, when he chased a burglar for more than a block, and then stabbed him to death.
In his ruling throwing out a second-degree murder charge against Greyston Garcia, a Miami judge found that Garcia was “well within his rights” to confront a burglar and demand his stolen radios. Garcia chased the burglar for more than a block and stabbed him to death.
Is this truly standing one’s ground?
So, let me see if I have this straight. If a mentally ill pedestrian walks in front of my fucking car in Arizona, I get to pull out a great big gun and kill him, because even though the green dog leash that the pedestrian possesses has a dog attached to it, you just never know, it could be a metal pipe. Even though the imagined ‘metal pipe’ is outside the car and I am inside the car, well you just never know, that pipe, that is really a green leash with a friendly dog on it just might start chasing me down the street. Homicide justified. Check.
If I live in Louisiana, I can embrace the racism, kill kids, claim “you just never know, one of them [insert racial slur that starts with an n here] might have a gun.” Assuming the kids were [slur again], I totally get away with it, claiming ‘self-defense.’ Homicide justified. Check.
Somebody on your porch isn’t technically really an intruder, could be somebody lost and needing directions, somebody hurt, or it could be the cable guy but hey, close enough. Homicide justified. Check.
Question: Are the stand your ground laws licenses to kill pretty much anybody you feel like killing? Or are they being misread by the courts?
Reference article- Five ‘Stand-Your-Ground’ Cases You Should Know About.
30 Comments
Answer: Yes…
It seems as though these laws are being used to settle an argument, prejudice or score (real or imagined) with killing someone.
Even in the so called wild west of Bat Masterson and Wyatt Earp. Yet even then it was generally frowned upon to kill somebody for no really good reason and people who did generally came to a bad end. Even when they were very good with a gun.
Insane, isn’t it? This country has gone completely off the deep end.
I am waiting for one or more states (wouldn’t be surprised at all if was one or more were once treasonous allies in the Old Confederacy) to enter into their statutes provisions for capital punishment for thought crimes and uncommitted crimes of those judged to have a criminal, genetic predisposition and link those abominations to ‘Stand your ground” resulting in the legal right for Americans to wantonly murder each other with guaranteed state immunity against prosecution.
Laugh ye not, for the Germans, Japanese, Russians and others ad infinitum did just that.
Why, hell, Americans are very efficient slayers of each other. If we were to compare the statistics of the annual American domestic murder rate with the number of Americans actually killed by terrorist attacks and activities, one would have to reasonably conclude that the American people are their own true terrorists.
The only things the American people really have to fear are organic American people and ‘corporate’ American people.
And they still think they live in a constitutional democracy of, by, and for the benefit of the People.
What fools, what bible thumping, ignorant, under educated, murderous fools.
When that which has gone around finally comes around, we will hardly know the place.
Thanks and very recommended.
Here’s another example:
You come in from cutting your grass and discover someone exiting your house carrying your TV. Now, the man has got his hand’s full of TV and it’s way too heavy to use as a weapon. Further, he’s leaving.
No way that man can be considered a threat to you. In fact, all he wants to do is get away from you…preferably with your TV.
A LARGE majority of homeowners in this nation feel the homeowner should be able to shoot under those circumstances.
HOWEVER, The homeowner served a large portion of a 5 year attempted manslaughter conviction. The burgler sued the homeowner and won. He was paralyzed when the TV fell on him when he fell after the gunshot, not from the gunshot itself.
Until we come up with something that protects the homeowner in the above circumstances, laws on shooting will continue to loosen.
Boxturtle (or somehow attitudes change and a burglars life becomes worth more than a TV)
Oh, I am not laughing at all at the concept of criminalizing thought. We are already very well along the way with that.
I agree on all of your points, except: “we will hardly know the place.”
I don’t know this place right now!
Thank you for stopping by and for the rec!
Bizarre! So, the homeowner is now the liable bad guy who served time, because the burglar was hurt by the stolen goods? Sometimes I wonder if there is anything in this country that makes sense anymore.
Thank you for your comment, Boxturtle.
PS Here’s the thing too. If there can ever be a time when laws are in place that protect people, well, then those laws will have to be enforced, equally and fairly, and not twisted out of context and applied to some of the people some of the time.
Bonus gift for C-S:
Be patient: in time, even an egg will walk.
The situation you describe is indeed a good part of the reason for why these laws are on the books.
It would be interesting to find out if a woman shooting at a stalker who has made her life miserable for years will fare well under these laws. Or are they only for the “good ol’ boys” whose warped racist thinking has them believe that they are ridding the country of yet another “blight on society.”
The Stand your Ground laws are a misnomer. These laws should be called Kill at Will laws but I’m sure the gun advocates and the NRA would say that is an overreaction on my part.
The reasoning went like this: Since the shooting was not justified (the homeowner was no in danger of life or limb), he’s liable for the consequences of his act. So the civil suit was pretty easy for the burgler to win.
As to your PS, well, people have largely given up on the government and the law protecting them and are taking maesures to protect themselves and to cut the government out of the process.
Boxturtle (only thing I need 911 for is to come pick up the body – Sticker on neighbors window)
Sadly, it depends on the jury. It shouldn’t, but it does. Gimme a jury of divorcee’s (male or female) and the lady will walk every time. Gimme a jury of rednecks and she was probably askin’ fer it.
I’m working on a home defense drone. It’ll shoot based on Obama’s terrorist criteria.
Boxturtle (The legal advantages alone would make such worthwhile)
I think this quote says what I feel best and it comes from a source obviously more credible than me.
taken from this article titled “Analysis: ‘Stand Your Ground’ States Have More Shootings”
Wow. Good work/horrible work.
so now the cops can shoot you, fellow citizens can shoot you and the POTUS can deep six you.
Kind of reminds you of the SS and Gestapo.
Just don’t Gestapo
by the cop-o.
Not much dif between SS & OSS.
(probably noticed that before)
The answers are yes AND yes.
Our lives are of little worth when the ok’s been given to the armed and fearful, and with the backing and now defense insurance of the NRA.
Democracy in (court-ordered)smoldering ruins. . . .
I can’t wait.:)
Yeah. that sounds about right. :(
Thank you so much for this link, tzar.
We have completely lost confidence in the ‘system’ it seems. Not at all surprising.
True, billyc.
The one in Florida was originally introduced as the “Shoot-to-Kill Bill” in the 1970s. (I think the name slowed it down a little.)
After reading the comments I wanted to add this. These incidents you list make the SYG laws look terrible. But then the early reporting on the Zimmerman/Martin case also looked like a cut and dried matter or racial profiling, murder and a police department that didn’t want to do it’s job because it hated black kids. The African American and Guilty white liberal communities had the whole country in an uproar until more of the real details started to surface.
My guess would be that there is more detail to each of these stories that the author of this diary has included here. The country has not gone crazy. We might have swung too far to the right according to some of us. But then I am willing to admit we had swung too far left on some of these issues.
For instance, for years some have been trying to say the 2nd amendment said something other than that Americans have the right to keep and bear arms. There is a segment of people on the left who think no one but the military and police should have the right to carry a gun. I have argued with them on prog-blogs many times. Don’t like the 2nd, then change it, but don’t lie about it.
So, anyway, I am betting there were extenuating circumstances that make all of these cases a bit more acceptable.
Excellent points, Laura.
It is true that information is missing from any story, not just these. I did check various sources on the stories and came up with the same thing each time, but since I was not in contact with anyone directly involved in any of the stories, I am sure details are missing.
Has the country gone mad? Well, from my perspective, the courts certainly have gone completely mad.
On edit: The right to bear arms and SYG are different issues.
It seems as though today, there has to be somebody or a corporate somebody in a position to make money if any crime is successfully prosecuted.
Example: a corporate elite can steal billions of dollars, but won’t be prosecuted…Why won’t he be prosecuted? Well, that means all of the other elite that did the same thing will have to be prosecuted also…That isn’t going to happen. The elite that hold the strings to the courts will only push for prosecution if prosecuting will make them more money or will protect their current interests.
Example: It makes sense financially to prosecute poor, disadvantaged, disproportionately Black/Latino people as they generally get longer sentences for the same crime committed by a white-middle or upper class person. Hence, the prison industrial complex makes money.
So, the next time I hear a client tell me their husband/boyfriend/partner is beating them up I should tell them to Stand their ground and just shoot them??? Of course not as they probably would not get the same treatment as the good Ol’Boys who got away with murder in your post.
Stand your ground makes sense IF: you are being physically attacked and you will be killed if you do not do shoot them first. Shooting pedestrians with dogs, rebellious teens, passed out drunk people on porches…Makes absolutely no sense. Recommended
I agree, and thank you for your comment and perspective (as an attorney, I assume).
Disparity in application of the laws, as well as in sentencing, makes no sense at all in this country right now. If you have enough money and if you know the right people, you can kill and get away with it, or get off with a very light sentence, for example. Makes no sense at all.
Also, warehousing the mentally ill in cement is a PIC cash cow.
Thank you for the compliment, as I believe most attorneys don’t wake up saying to themselves, “Who can I fuck over today?”
I am a certified domestic violence advocate…At least that’s what the paper says. I have my degree in Sociology with a concentration in criminology and am 2 classes from my degree in Native American Studies. I was recruited by Dartmouth and after a year of hearing about how public health was public health if you could afford to pay for it, I told them to shove it…I am now a Ph.D. candidate in Transpersonal Psychology. It is difficult for me, as many times I don’t see labels…I just see humanity (I was one of the persons held hostage by the PIC and the pharmaceutical companies. I only include the PIC as they would have been more than happy to have me.)
The prison industrial complex does not see humanity, but dollar signs. The stupid laws…influenced by the industries and institutions that paid for them…When society/corporate America has a problem with behavior, they pass a law. Never once do they think that the new law is going to cause other social problems. Well those people who break the new laws must be crazy and need to be locked up. Well…How about some JUSTICE under the law. That would be nice for a change.
Thank you for the nice response.