Skip to main content

#140 of My Stupid State series

Screw you Rick Scott. Screw you and all you rednecks with legislative power who imposed this idiotic monstrosity on Florida.

Colt Thriemer and Thomas J Brown got into a fist fight at a Walmart Parking Lot.  There were several witnesses who say that the victim, Thomas Brown, was walking away afterwards to his car when Colt Thriemer shot Thomas Brown after retrieving a handgun.  Mr. Brown was shot 10 times at fairly close range both in the back while he was walking away and then when he turned towards Mr. Thriemer after being shot, apparently pleading him to stop.  Mr. Thriemer then fled the scene.

When he was apprehended, he did what all murderers do now in Florida: claim he was in "fear for his life".  The prosecutor agreed.

The prosecutor's statement summed up all that is fucking wrong with Stand Your Ground:

"The Stand Your Ground Statue makes no exception to the immunity because Brown may have been walking away from Thriemer when deadly force was used."
That's because the f_ing law was made by f_ing  imbeciles.  

What's worse, when they had the chance to fix the law after Travoyn Martin's death, the legislature refused.  Rick Scott appointed a "panel" stacked with the law's proponents and authors who thought it was just dandy.

The bastards wouldn't even tweak it to say if you are who originally caused the violence, you can't then say you "feared for your life"

Right now in Florida, a man can stalk a woman, attack her, and if she say, knees him in the groin or throws a rock at him, the man can shoot her and claim he was "in fear of his life".  Thankfully, most of our prosecutors and judges aren't fucking morons like our politicians, but Rick Scott and AG Pam Bondi are trying to change that.  

In this case, the prosecutor opined that maybe the victim was walking away to retrieve a gun.  Okay, if you thought that at least let this go to trial!  But fuck it.  These were "poors".  And if you thought the latest "purge" movie was far-fetched, come visit.

On second thought, dear God, DON'T!!!

Note:  I linked to David Pakman's video on youtube.  If you cannot get it, several outlets picked up the story.  Essentially, I covered a lot of what he covered in my post, but left out his poignant question at the end--what if someone shot an open carry member who walked into a restaurant with an assault rifle?  Certainly the shooter would be justified in "fear for their life"?  Yeah, right.

PS.. Pakman's previous story was about a social media specialist for a language school who was fired for writing about "homophones" because his boss thought he was "encouraging homosexuality". Pakman left the picture up of the specialist accidentally-he is no way related to this story.  

PSS.. One reason police are reluctant to arrest murderers is because the law states there are financial penalties for police if the gunman is acquitted under Stand Your Ground.  SNL did a great take on what it's like now to be a policeman in Florida.

The NRA and the FL GOP aren't slowing down.  They moved to limit the public's access to SYG cases, in response to the Tampa Bay Times award-winning expose on how unevenly and unfairly SYG is applied.

Final.... We must change this regime.  We invite you to attend the Kossack, candidate, and blogger meetup this Saturday.  If you can't attend, please throw a few bucks to the disabled Vets and advocates organizing it. Don't wait for our side's elites or Party officials to save Florida... it truly is going to fall on us.

11:58 PM PT: Lest I leave you with the wrong impression, neither man in this case was an angel.  (Except according to their respective families, or regarding the AG's memo, just the shooter.) Both were drug dealers who ran with gangs.  There are PLENTY of examples of real innocent victims. Not my point.  Nor the fact that precedence seems to always go with the shooter (since dead people can't defend themselves).  Nor how non-impartial some of our AGs are, especially our top one who was ranked worst in nation.

SYG is applied according to however the prosecutor wants to interpret "reasonable fear", which often is based on personal bias. This case should have gone to trial, but even if you believe the prosecutor/shooter version of events, standard defense laws provide a reasonable threshold to let someone go.  SYG allows anyone to go for no other reason that they claimed fear, even if they have committed murder in the past or their fear stems from running into an approaching minority.


Originally posted to SemDem on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 07:28 PM PDT.

Also republished by DKos Florida, North & Central Florida Kossacks, and Shut Down the NRA.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  A Rational Person Would Say the Law Does Make (36+ / 0-)

    an exception.

    The victim was leaving. The victim was shot in the back so that his angle shows that he could not possibly harm the shooter in any way.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 07:41:15 PM PDT

  •  No need to invoke 'stand your ground' if you are (36+ / 0-)

    a police officer.

    A man shot and killed by an Alameda County sheriff's deputy in East Oakland didn't have a gun and was fleeing when he was shot in the head, an attorney for the dead man's family said Tuesday.

    Jacorey Calhoun, 23, was shot by a deputy that works alongside a police dog, said attorney John Burris, who has been retained by the family to investigate the shooting. He said Calhoun was "unarmed and was running away" when he was shot.

    ...

    About 5:50 a.m., the suspect was spotted moving in a yard. "Hey, somebody just jumped over west, to the west yard. Is that one of you guys?" an officer asked on the Oakland police radio.

    Another officer replied, "Hold still. I think he's working his way - just hold the air. And a male black - he's actually fleeing."

    At least seven gunshots could then be heard as the deputy opened fire. "Shots fired!" an officer reported.

    http://www.sfgate.com/...
  •  Unbelievable. (39+ / 0-)

    So, you rape a woman and then shoots her in the head and say, oh, I was in fear that she'd come after me later so I stood my ground and shot her.

    And the asshole walks away free.

    Add Florida to the list of places too stupid to set foot in. EVER.
    In fact it may have moved up the list ahead of Texas and Arizona.

  •  Was the prosecutor Angela Corey by any chance? ... (9+ / 0-)

    Was the prosecutor Angela Corey by any chance?

    Had to ask.

  •  Shot a man in the back. Mom must be proud. (14+ / 0-)

    Shot a man in the back. Mom must be proud.

  •  RWers will need to change it themselves (22+ / 0-)

    Pessimistic me thinks that they won't change the laws until they have several instances of their own shooting their own.

    When they shoot blacks, minorities, people not in their church, democrats, anyone not in their tribe, it seems to me most of the Rwers  celebrate.  

    Glad I don't live in Florida.

    “Everyone is ignorant, only on different subjects.” ― Will Rogers

    by MugWumpBlues on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 08:16:40 PM PDT

  •  The family should make this a federal case to d... (33+ / 0-)

    The family should make this a federal case to determine if the victim's right to life has been infringed and to settle the validity of such a stupid law.

    •  prosecutor has every reason (18+ / 0-)

      to make it look as one-sided as possible to justify his decision.  other witnesses didn't say it went down like that.

      both men were NOT good people... they both sold drugs and participated in gang activity. But according to both families and friends their guy was "completely innocent" and the other guy was a thug.

      If it completely down the way the shooter said, which is the version the prosecutor believed, then he was right not to prosecute... but not only do I have my doubts, you don't need Stand Your Ground to do that.

      There was NEVER a prosecution in Florida where someone shot in self-defense and was prosecuted before SYG.  The GOP politicians could not find one.  Yet FL NRA matriarch Marian Hammer wanted this, and no conservative has ever said no to her.

      The Seminole Democrat
      Confronting the criminally insane who rule our state; as well as the apathy of the vast majority who let them.

      by SemDem on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 08:57:43 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  There should still be a trial. (10+ / 0-)

      Without a trial the prosecution can say whatever they want happened.  There's no way to know if it's actually true.  You said it yourself, "IF the account in the memo is accurate".  A trial is the only way to answer that "IF."

      America, where a rising tide lifts all boats! Unless you don't have a boat...uh...then it lifts all who can swim! Er, uh...um...and if you can't swim? SHAME ON YOU!

      by Back In Blue on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 09:07:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  not hear it ain't (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Angie in WA State, Miggles, Iberian

        The Seminole Democrat
        Confronting the criminally insane who rule our state; as well as the apathy of the vast majority who let them.

        by SemDem on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 09:13:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  No. No. No. Absolutely not. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        NearlyNormal, sviscusi

        We do not try people without cause in this country. Or at least we shouldn't.

        •  He killed a guy, that's not cause enough for you? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          a2nite

          America, where a rising tide lifts all boats! Unless you don't have a boat...uh...then it lifts all who can swim! Er, uh...um...and if you can't swim? SHAME ON YOU!

          by Back In Blue on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 11:51:45 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, it isn't (0+ / 0-)

            Because all the evidence that we know of points to this being a clear case of self defense.

            •  All the evidence we know of is (0+ / 0-)

              not all that compelling.  The DA memo is suspiciously one sided even though Thrieman is an admitted drug dealer.  Of course, he claims he was trying to straighten things out and all the family and friends he told that story to confirmed that he told that story. That doesn't make it true.  The problem with SYG is that we will never know because no charges are allowed to be filed under SYG.  Before SYG, he would have been charged and would claim self-defense and the case would have to go through a much more vigorous investigation, and potentially a trial.  

              America, where a rising tide lifts all boats! Unless you don't have a boat...uh...then it lifts all who can swim! Er, uh...um...and if you can't swim? SHAME ON YOU!

              by Back In Blue on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 11:13:10 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  His character is irrelevant. Utterly irrelevant. (0+ / 0-)

                What matters is the account of the witnesses. They all say that the "victim" had beaten the crap out of the shooter, and then announced that he was going to his car (which was very close) to get his gun and finish the job.

                At that point (and note: ONLY at that point- not while he was getting his face rearranged) the shooter pulled his weapon and fired at his attacker.

                This account of events is based on the statement of several witnesses.

                •  I said nothing about his character. (0+ / 0-)

                  Is dealing drugs a character flaw or a defacto crime?  And apparently, character is not irrelevant to the DA as the opening paragraph of the memo discusses exactly that.   I was pointing out that the witnesses who corroborated his story could only corroborate that he told that story, not that they witnessed or had seen evidence of the events themselves.  All of those witnesses were family or friends and only one who claimed to be friends with both Brown and Thriemer.

                  As for the event itself, the witnesses said Brown punched Thriemer once or twice depending on the witness.  That's sucks but it's hardly beating the crap out of him or even "re-arranging his face".  Only one witness claims he said "I have a gun in the truck, and I'm not afraid to use it." Funny, Thriemer is not listed as hearing Brown say that. In fact, there's so many holes in that memo that any decent prosecutor could honestly argue and that would demand proof from Thriemer.  

                  The memo states many things as fact with no evidence to support it.  Maybe that's the standard for a memo in FL and there's more to back it up elsewhere, but we don't have it.  Lacking that knowledge you only have one side of the story—Thriemer's side—which paints Thriemer as a model recovering former drug dealing gangster and Brown as a crack-addicted maniac.  But we don't get to hear from Brown because he's dead.  And the AG's memo has only Brown's hearing impaired parents to defend Brown and who've they decided couldn't possibly communicate with Brown's long-time friend.  Sorry, but the police don't have a reputation of understanding disabled people and what they're capable or not-capable of.

                  I fundamentally disagree with the premise of SYG, especially on the right to use deadly force to prevent a forceable felony. So, someone tries to steal something they can be killed.  How is that self-defence?  The problem with SYG is we only get to hear one side, because the other side is dead and relies on witnesses who have to point the finger at the guy who just killed someone.  Yeah, justice.

                  America, where a rising tide lifts all boats! Unless you don't have a boat...uh...then it lifts all who can swim! Er, uh...um...and if you can't swim? SHAME ON YOU!

                  by Back In Blue on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 09:54:51 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  If this is so: (0+ / 0-)
                    I fundamentally disagree with the premise of SYG, especially on the right to use deadly force to prevent a forceable felony.
                    ... then we really have nothing to discuss. If you reject the very notion of lawful use of deadly force, it is only natural that you would find this act criminal.

                    However, the fact is that the law as written does allow for deadly force in certain circumstances. This situation looks very much like one of them.

                    •  Do you think things are better with SYG? (0+ / 0-)

                      I don't reject the very notion of lawful use of deadly force.  I think we disagree on what is justifiable.  If you think SYG is anything but a piece of shit law, then we really do not have anything to talk about.

                      America, where a rising tide lifts all boats! Unless you don't have a boat...uh...then it lifts all who can swim! Er, uh...um...and if you can't swim? SHAME ON YOU!

                      by Back In Blue on Thu Aug 07, 2014 at 05:54:31 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

    •  Because everyone (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      kmfmstar

      only says the truth and insinuations are dead sentences

    •  And where did (0+ / 0-)

      the prosecutor get that account?  What did the other guy say?  O, sorry, forgot, the other guy was murdered, shot in the back while holding no weapons.  The prosecutor should be brought before the bar.

  •  For the Fla travel dep't: (19+ / 0-)

    Florida - Come for the Sun; Stay because you've been shot dead.

    Florida - bring a person you hate so you can kill with impunity.

    Florida - we make AZ & Tx seem sane

     F L A - rhymes with N R A

    Fla - the state that looks like a dick, acts like one, too.

    You all laugh because I'm different; I laugh because you're all the same

    by sajiocity on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 08:29:08 PM PDT

  •  This .... (8+ / 0-)
    Right now in Florida, a man can stalk a woman, attack her, and if she say, knees him in the groin or throws a rock at him, the man can shoot her and claim he was "in fear of his life".  Thankfully, most of our prosecutors and judges aren't fucking morons like our politicians, but Rick Scott and AG Pam Bondi are trying to change that.  
    As more of these people "win" their SYG cases, it's going to plant the seed with some people that they can start a confrontation that leads them to "fearing for their life" and then pull a gun to settle the dispute and walk away scot free.

    The zombie lunatics should start a 51st state - a portion of Alaska seems about right - and they can let this SYG experiment play out in their very own "laboratory for democracy".

    "Looking back over a lifetime, you see that love was the answer to everything." — Ray Bradbury

    by We Shall Overcome on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 08:34:10 PM PDT

  •  Florida's criminal justice system is a joke (7+ / 0-)

    I'm not sure how anyone could stand to work in it.  

  •  Add Florida to Arizona (6+ / 0-)

    as someplace I'll never visit in my own country.

  •  Freedom is just another word (8+ / 0-)

    for shooting someone ten times in the back.

    It's our God given right to gun down our unarmed enemies as our founders intended.

    The tricky part is just making sure you are on the right side of the firearm.

    If cats could blog, they wouldn't

    by crystal eyes on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 08:46:38 PM PDT

  •  No, it's better than that. (6+ / 0-)
    PS.. his previous story was about a rightwing teacher who had an insulting blogpost to homosexuals, and he left the picture up accidentally.
    It was a social media specialist for a language school who was fired for writing about homophones.

    Because homophones are gay.

    (Sorry for the hijack, just had to correct that bit)

    It turns out that the skill set required to get elected is completely different than the skill set required to effectively govern.

    by VictorLaszlo on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 08:50:20 PM PDT

  •  why in the hell would I ever want to go to Florida (13+ / 0-)

    Frankly all these stories and especially this outcome makes me believe Florida in not a safe place. I'd rather visit and spend my money where I don't have to worry about possibly getting into some disagreement with someone who can take out a gun, kill me even after I disengaged and then claim stand your ground to get away scott free.

    I'd rather spend my time and my money in some place civil.
    (Hear that Orlando?!)

    Floriduh, a muderers paradise.

    Bumper sticker seen on I-95; "Stop Socialism" my response: "Don't like socialism? GET OFF the Interstate highway!"

    by Clytemnestra on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 08:58:51 PM PDT

  •  Brown was shot with his own gun (0+ / 0-)

    For the record, both men were drug dealers and Brown gave Thriemer the gun "for protection".
    When a man is given a gun and told to shoot anyone who threatens him, that's what tends to happen.

    •  Yep, and that's why a trial is needed. (4+ / 0-)

      Neither of these assholes is believable and they both put everyone around them in danger.  Brown is dead, but Thriemer walks.  To assume Thriemer has learned his lesson is naive at best.  He's a danger to everyone around him and the public—and he's still armed as far as I can tell.

      America, where a rising tide lifts all boats! Unless you don't have a boat...uh...then it lifts all who can swim! Er, uh...um...and if you can't swim? SHAME ON YOU!

      by Back In Blue on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 09:11:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  unfortunately, in SYG cases (9+ / 0-)

        the guy who shoots first usually get precedence with their version of events.  dead people can't testify.

        if brown had managed to kill thriemer, I can all but guarantee the prosecutor would have selectively chosen the witnesses that backed Brown and chosen his family and friend's version of his character.  Both of them are super innocent depending on who you listen to.

        The Seminole Democrat
        Confronting the criminally insane who rule our state; as well as the apathy of the vast majority who let them.

        by SemDem on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 09:19:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Are there any SYG cases--- (0+ / 0-)

          Are there any SYG cases where the shooter failed to KILL the intended victim???

          What happened NEXT there???

          Or any where innocent by-standers were killed?  What happened NEXT there?

          WE need to have THIS info to know WTF we are talking about--yes Dead Men Tell No Tales is all fine n good but---what if the intended victim COULD speak--cause ya know--they did NOT DIE????

          Were THESE cases prosecuted?  It is ONLY SYG if the guy DIES?????

      •  There's no evidence of that. (0+ / 0-)

        That he's a danger to everyone around him. If Thriemer didn't seek out Brown, was trying to stay away from Brown, but was harassed by Brown, by what basis would you claim that Thriemer intends to suddenly become the agressor himself?

        What would you put Thriemer on trial for?  His future mental state?

        •  only if you blindly accept the prosecutor's memo (12+ / 0-)

          on which you've already made up your mind, which is amazingly the same version as the shooter's.  If you lived here, you would not be so trusting of several of the AG's.

          SYG states that anyone can use deadly force if they "have a reasonable fear of loss of life".  As you have seen with Trayvon and the hundreds of cases in the SYG investigation link above, that can be anything, including a unstable fear of black people.  

          Why do you think the NRA is attempting to shut down public access to SYG records?

          The Seminole Democrat
          Confronting the criminally insane who rule our state; as well as the apathy of the vast majority who let them.

          by SemDem on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 10:45:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Thriemer is a confessed criminal. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          samanthab, Norm in Chicago, Iberian

          He's a threat because he sold drugs, is involved with other dealers/suppliers and carries a gun and clearly was willing to use it without any evidence that he thought much about anyone around him and fled the scene IIRC.   If the memo is accurate, there's also a drug dealer out there who was looking for Brown who is now very likely looking for Brown's killer in oder to get his money.  Or maybe they'll threaten or come after Thriemer's family.

          Of course, the DA memo might be true.  OR it may be complete bullshit.  Or maybe something entirely different went on between them and the drug world they entered.  We will never know and no investigation into Thriemer will happen because he has SYG immunity.  

          IF SYG didn't exist then Thriemer would be charged with homicide.  He would then claim self-defense.  At that point, an actual investigation would proceed followed by a trial or more likely a deal being made, one that just might help catch the supplying dealer.  Hopefully a complete picture with more evidence than just statements from family and friends would ensure a just verdict for all involved.  That won't happen because of SYG.  

          SYG let's the prosecutor create whatever narrative fits the outcome they want or at least expect.  There is no check on their conclusion.  That's not justice.  That's not how our system is supposed to work.  SYG removes due process which as much about the state's justice (yours and mine) as the defendants.

          America, where a rising tide lifts all boats! Unless you don't have a boat...uh...then it lifts all who can swim! Er, uh...um...and if you can't swim? SHAME ON YOU!

          by Back In Blue on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 02:04:42 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's true. The gun nuts all want to talk (6+ / 0-)

            about losing their second amendment rights, but what about our constitutional right to due process? I guess that doesn't count for much anymore? It certainly doesn't count for much when you're dead.

          •  That's a legitimate, but separate issue (0+ / 0-)

            SYG isn't supposed to grant immunity for all criminal action.
            SYG covers Thriemer not being charged with homicide for self-defense, but why would it get him off the hook for drug dealing?

            No I favor legalizing drugs, so I don't see any point in jailing someone for selling weed.  But since it is illegal, he can be charged with it.

            If that's how SYG is being used, that it grants immunity to ALL crimes, then it's an even worse law than I thought.
            I do expect there to be due process.  But I also don't want every person who defends himself charged with murder and facing prison time unless found innocent in court.
            SYG is supposed to make the State prove that there wasn't self defense, and not to make a person who was attacked prove his innocence.

            •  Not separate. (0+ / 0-)

              There's no information provided in any of the coverage about wether he will be charged for anything else so I don't know if he will be or not.

              SYG doesn't do what you think it does.  The state always had to prove Thriemer was guilty, before and after SYG.  SYG means Thriemer did not have to retreat and is allowed to kill someone for threatening him if he feared for his life.  There's no evidence provided by the AG memo or any of the coverage that Brown has ever shot anyone.  It's entirely possible he wouldn't be able to do it and was only using the gun to intimidate and get money out of Thriemer.   I could speculate a number of scenarios, but that's the point—we will never know because of SYG.  

              IF the AG memo is accurate, Thriemer would likely have been found not guilty and likely wouldn't have even gone to trial.  But SYG means we will never find out anything else.  That's why it's not a separate issue.  The investigation would need to be more thorough and the prosecution, if it came to that, would have allowed the police to find out much more information about what's really going on here and answer some serious questions:

              — Was Thriemer only selling pot?
              — Does Thriemer have more connection to the supplier than he's admitted?
              — Was Thriemer connected to or have knowledge of any other crimes associated with the supplier?
              — What about the guns?  Is that the only gun Thriemer had?  Was it stolen?  Who really owned it?
              — What else is Thriemer involved with that he hasn't mentioned?

              I'm sure actual detectives would have a lot more and better  questions, but can they ask them? Does Thriemer have any incentive to answer them?

              Also, Thriemer's defense might have revealed a lot of valuable information as well.  And, what about Brown?  He might still be alive and under arrest, hopefully spilling his guts or maybe revealing valuable info, too.

              Again, we will never know because of SYG.

              FYI: I don't think people should be going to jail for selling weed to adults (we don't know who he sold it to, do we.).

              America, where a rising tide lifts all boats! Unless you don't have a boat...uh...then it lifts all who can swim! Er, uh...um...and if you can't swim? SHAME ON YOU!

              by Back In Blue on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 11:42:51 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  it's simply not tue (0+ / 0-)

                that the prosecutor always had to prove the defendant guilty if he claimed to have been acting in self-defense when he killed someone - until recently, any defendant claiming to have acted in self-defense had to convince a jury, on a balance of probabilities, that he was indeed acting in self-defense.

                •  No, you don't have to prove your innocence. (0+ / 0-)

                  You are innocent until proven guilty.  What country were you living in?

                  America, where a rising tide lifts all boats! Unless you don't have a boat...uh...then it lifts all who can swim! Er, uh...um...and if you can't swim? SHAME ON YOU!

                  by Back In Blue on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 11:18:32 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  He aimed a gun at an individual (0+ / 0-)

          WHOSE BACK WAS TURNED TO HIM WHILE WALKING AWAY! Then he proceeded to kill that individual.

          Unless or until that individual was hlding a weapon, s/he is no threat.

          Strengthen the Senate! ROCK THE HOUSE!

          by mwm341 on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 11:56:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  You are bringing up legal terms that should be (6+ / 0-)

      decided in court -- not by some gun toter who doesn't know shit about the law.  So now SYG means any of us can yell out attempted murder and start firing away???  This line of reasoning is exactly why carrying firearms in public has nothing to do with a peaceful, progressive, civilized society.

      •  SYG is bad law (0+ / 0-)

        And I'm not opposed to this case going to trial.  I'm just pointing out that Brown wasn't some innocent bystander just minding his own business before he got shot.

        As for your last line, given that both of these men were drug dealers, they'd have guns whether or not owning guns is legal.  You're better off legalizing drugs and getting rid of the drug dealers.

        •  So the guilt of a person for one crime (which is (0+ / 0-)

          not proven) means that they are fair game to be a recipient of vigilante gun violence?  Where to draw the line?  That guy just jay walked, so I can stand my ground against him because he is GUILTY!  We are supposed to be a country of laws, not some place where justice is carried out on the spot at the end of a gun barrel.

          Why is it that everything except the gun problem is what needs fixing?  Bad guys can acquire lock picks and switchblades whether or not owning them is legal.  That is no argument to avoid enacting or eliminate gun safety laws.

          •  They're separate things (0+ / 0-)

            No, that is NOT what I said.  Thriemer didn't shoot Brown for being a drug dealer, as a vigilante.

            The report we have from the prosecutor is that Brown attacked first, he started shit, and Thriemer acted in self defense.
            If Thriemer had shot Brown unprovoked, then Thriemer would be guilty of murder.  Instead it was the other way around.

            This isn't about crimes that Brown committed, it's about the attack he committed.  There is no right to attack another person, there is the right of self defense.

            •  So every scuffle no matter how minor can (0+ / 0-)

              legitimately be escalated to a gun fight thanks to the self defense argument?  The prime tenet of any self defense situation is to exit the situation, not amp it up and escalate it.

              This is stuff that should be sorted out by the cops and prosecutors and a jury of reasonable people, not hot headed individuals who happen to have a gun handy.  That's, like, why we live in a democracy in the first place.

              •  What's a minor scuffle? (0+ / 0-)

                As I showed in the link I posted, one single punch can lead to death.  I'm not so sure there is such a thing as a minor scuffle.

                Maybe the best lesson for a peaceful democracy to learn is, if you start a fight, you very well may end up killing someone, and end up dead yourself.  So keep your hands to yourself.

                And for the guy who died after getting punched, it's cold comfort that it was sorted out by a jury after he was buried.

  •  Throwing a punch is attempted murder. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Shockwave

    In my town a couple weeks ago, a man punched another man outside a bar. One single punch, unprovoked.
    The man who was punched fell back, hit his head on the pavement. Slipped into a coma and died a few days later.

    If a man punches you, he is literally trying to kill you. At a minimum, he doesn't care if you die. Lethal force in return against attempted murder is legitimate.

    And in the links MGross posted above, Brown was violent, unstable, had been threatening Threimer, and stated he was going to get a gun.

    Given that situation, no one is duty bound to sit there and wait to be murdered.

    •  read your title again. think about what you wrote (12+ / 0-)

      any time a person throws a punch at someone, its the same as attempted murder???  

      You are talking about a freak accident that happens one in a million as justification for shooting anyone who gets in a fight.

      So freaking glad you aren't a school recess monitor....

      The Seminole Democrat
      Confronting the criminally insane who rule our state; as well as the apathy of the vast majority who let them.

      by SemDem on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 10:14:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  In what universe is throwing a punch attempted (10+ / 0-)

      MURDER?

      What are you talking about?

      Are you yet another gun dude with no actual self defense ability? you clearly know nothing about actual fighting. Too much reliance on the gun.

      Thats one of the stupidest things i have read here- and thats among stiff competiton.

      •  When a single punch can kill... (0+ / 0-)

        http://www.dailyherald.com/...

        If landing a single punch that results in death brings a murder charge, then throwing a single punch is attempted murder.
        A punch can carry deadly force and should be recognized as such.

        So the dead guy in the article I linked, was just a wimp with no self defense ability?  It's his wimpy fault that he wasn't on guard for a sucker punch after a night out at the bar?

        Blame the victim, nice. Next you'll tell me that people who don't want to get punched shouldn't be out in bars late at night.

        •  That is such whiney horseshit. (7+ / 0-)

          He FELL.

          The punch didn't kill him, the fall-related head injury would.

          Not that I expect you to be able to understand this, but if I did a foot sweep, which doesn't look like anything, the "poor helpless victim' falls backwards. If they hit their head on the ground and die, it isn't the footsweep that caused the death, it's the head injury.

          If I do the footsweep unprovoked and somebody dies then I can at least be charged with manslaughter, or something, but in and of itself a foot sweep isn't 'attempted murder'.

          I can just as easily, and more realistically state that owning a handgun is tantamount to premeditated murder.

          I can find stories about people killed from a baseball to the chest: why do we still play baseball???????

          Your concern is so fucking silly.

          I have managed to get to 54 years of age without killing anybody even though I have been in fights started by other people.

          Don't start shit and there won;t be shit.

          It's pretty goddammned simple.

          At least out in the real world.

          •  Owning and using a weapon are not the same thing (0+ / 0-)
            I can just as easily, and more realistically state that owning a handgun is tantamount to premeditated murder.
            No, just owning a gun is not premeditated murder.  But pulling that gun out, pointing it at someone and pulling the trigger is attempted murder.  All use of deadly force is.
            That's pretty simple to understand.

            Lets look at the actions of 3 separate people, out walking down a busy sidewalk.  Persons A, B and C.

            Person A, unprovoked, foot sweeps another person.  Causing that person to fall backwards, hit his head and die.

            Person B, unprovoked, whips a baseball into another person's chest.  Causing that person to fall backwards, hit his head and die.

            Person C, unprovoked, pulls out a gun and shoots at another person.  He misses but causes that person to fall backwards, hit his head and die.

            All three of those examples are the use of a lethal level of force against another person.  All three of those people should have known better and known not to "start shit".
            If you want to be a lawyer and call these examples "assault with deadly weapons" and "manslaughter", fine.  I call it murder.

            Actions have consequences.  If a person chooses to use lethal force unprovoked (meaning not self defense) and the other person dies, it's murder.

            •  There is NO right to fuck with people. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              a2nite

              You can celebrate victimhood all you want, but you can't make me accept or validate your wimpy, ineffectual crap.

              I don't care if YOU think it's murder.

              You're wrong.

            •  You can call it murder - that doesn't make it so (0+ / 0-)

              Words have meanings...
              I think I understand your point, but if everyone accepts that this is murder because a punch is deadly force, then what happens when someone punches someone in the arm for a greeting?  That is also deadly force?
              How do you distinguish between the person's action and the effect?  If you are driving a car, and a child runs out from behind a car in front of you, and you hit them, is that also murder?  If you were aiming to hit the kid, that would be a different story, so the law (and people in general) would use different terminology to assign (or not) blame.
              From the punch story, the puncher deserves punishment for his actions.  Depending on how hard the punch was, the punishment should probably be lighter or harder.  But it doesn't sound like he intended to kill the victim.

              •  Involuntary Manslaughter maybe--- (0+ / 0-)

                I am thinking "Murder" as a charge is a wee bit over the top here--perhaps a lesser charge will be pleaded to as trial approaches--

                Many many actions "could" lead to some ones death that have NOTHING to do with murder.  

                Was it Natasha Richardson (the actress-- Liam Neesons wife)  that died from a brain bleed after falling  while skiing?  Should they have sued the ski mountain?

                A friend of mine wrestled in HS;  got up after winning a match sat on the bench and keeled over DEAD.  Should the kid he wrestled with have been charged?  After all--they fought!

                We need some sanity and clarity here

      •  In GUNS MAKE ME GOD (0+ / 0-)

        Universe. A well known place where many gun owners hang out.

        Do you know that boxer can legally kill each other at anytime they are in a ring? and hockey players too. IT'S GUN UNIVERSE tm!!!!

        •  Yet we are encouraged to sit there and (0+ / 0-)

          be victims and relish it.

          Then brag about how you didn't lift a finger to help yourself.

          This is not part of MY value system.

          And I cannot actually understand  it.

          But I got bullied in my younger days and hated it.

          I never learned to enjoy being victimized.

    •  I guess then all my study and practice of (7+ / 0-)

      martial arts is 'conspiracy to commit murder"?

      I should be arrested RIGHT NOW~!

      •  If you've studied martial arts... (0+ / 0-)

        Then you know the power a punch or kick can have. Training to use a deadly weapon isn't conspiracy to commit murder. But using deadly force against another human being can certainly be considered attempted murder.

        If you just walked up to a man and sucker punched him with such force as to knock him out cold, what would you call that?

        •  I would never walk up and start anything like that (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Miggles, a2nite, tommymet

          I finish shit.

          I don't start it.

          Ever.

          People who start shit and get hurt get what they deserved.

          Don't start shit.

          Why is that so hard to grasp?

          And you are utterly powerless without your precious gun.

          I'd feel weak if I needed a gun as much as you do.

          •  Then you understand this case and SYG (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Neo Control, Kentucky Kid
            People who start shit and get hurt get what they deserved.
            Don't start shit.
            Why is that so hard to grasp?
            If someone came up to you and attacked you, and you stood your ground and "finished shit", and the other person ended up dead, you don't believe that you should go to jail for that, do you?  If you are attacked with deadly force, you can respond with deadly force.

            Brown started shit, Brown got shot, Brown got what he deserved, right?

            And you are utterly powerless without your precious gun.
            I'd feel weak if I needed a gun as much as you do.
            I keep having to repeat this, I don't own a gun.  Every discussion on guns I have is a Constitutional rights discussion.
            I have no desire to shoot a person, or beat them into a bloody pulp.
            •  People who fuck with other people and end up dead (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              tommymet, a2nite

              have NOBODY to blame but themselves.

              Where is it written we have the right to just fuck with people?

               OK so you don't have a gun.

              Good for you.

              me either.

              I don't need it.

              •  I mean, is this not reason #1 to not start shit? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Norm in Chicago
              •  So why did you disagree with me? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Neo Control, Kentucky Kid
                Where is it written we have the right to just fuck with people?
                You are absolutely right.  There is no right to just fuck with people.  Which is why I consider throwing a punch, unprovoked, to be "attempted murder", because there is a very real possibility of someone ending up dead.  Don't start shit, don't get charged with attempted murder.  Simple.

                There is no right to throw a punch, and every reason to consider it assault with a deadly weapon.  

                •  Your premise is that people don't have any right (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Norm in Chicago

                  to defend themselves.

                  Too much potential for the assailant to get hurt so we need to just take it so we dont hurt other people.

                  FUCK THEM.

                  Fuck ANYBODY who starts shit.

                  It's clear you do not understand this at all.

                  •  No, got it backwards. I was defending the SYG (0+ / 0-)

                    That is NOT what I said at all.

                    The premise of this diary is that Thriemer should face charges for shooting Brown.  But the report is that Brown punched Thriemer in the face, then said he was going to get a gun to finish Thriemer off.
                    http://www.scribd.com/...

                    What I said, was that Brown throwing that punch, when he started shit, was attempted murder against Thriemer, who could have easily been killed by that punch.

                    Thriemer had no duty to fist fight back, or to go all kung fu on Brown.  He was justified in shooting Brown, he had the RIGHT to defend himself, because Brown was the one who started shit by trying to kill Thriemer.

                    I can't make it any clearer than that.  So do you still want to claim that Brown didn't commit attempted murder and that Thriemer had no right to defend himself against the guy who started shit?

                    •  But but but but but (0+ / 0-)

                      self-defense is potentoal MURRRRRRR-DUURRRRRRR!!!!!!

                      That's what you keep screaming.

                      That's why it appears to defend victimization.

                      Fuck all this: Ever been in a real fight Norm?

                      I have.

                      I won.

                      How'd you do?

                      •  Dumbass started it. I finished it. (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        a2nite, Norm in Chicago

                        I beat the guy bloody. Probably cuts on his head from being smashed against a Mercedes and I damaged one of his fingers pretty badly.

                        I tried to take it easy on him, but he was a shithead.

                        He had to go to the hospital.

                        Pressed Assault charges because he attacked me.

                        High-5'd the cop.

                        Got all HIS bloodstains out of my shirt.

                        And yeah, I brag about it because it was an accomplishment.

                        I value fighting ability.

                        We're clearly very different.

                      •  I said that about the very first punch thrown (0+ / 0-)

                        I do not keep saying that self-defense is murder, and I honestly don't know where you got that from.

                        I said throwing a punch, as in the very first one, as in the aggressor, is attempted murder.

                        Once someone tries to kill you, self defense kicks in and you can fight back.  You can kill the person trying to kill you.

                        Relax buddy.  You can beat a guy bloody, good for you.  If he started it, then I'm talking about him, not you.

                        •  Ever in the history of the US (0+ / 0-)

                          Someone delivering one punch and the person hitting there head and dieing would be charged with manslaughter (possibly even involuntary at that).  If the the prosecutor is going for 1st degree murder he is either trying to force a plea deal. If it goes to trial with that charge only the jury would most likely find him innocent of first degree murder.  The prosecutor is an idiot.

                    •  Was brown still a danger after being shot once (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Norm in Chicago, white blitz

                      or twice or three times?
                      Are all 10 shots self defense?

    •  If I'd shot everyone who threw a punch at me (6+ / 0-)

      The halls of my high school would have been littered with corpses.

      If the pilot's good, see, I mean if he's reeeally sharp, he can barrel that baby in so low... oh you oughta see it sometime. It's a sight. A big plane like a '52... varrrooom! Its jet exhaust... frying chickens in the barnyard!

      by Major Kong on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 03:36:00 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  See part of the problem is these guys that walk (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Miggles, Iberian, tommymet, burlydee

      around with guns are just cowardly...

      A fist fight would have left a few bruises....but would have posed no risk to bystanders

      10 shots in the back could have easily killed a bystander or three

      Take the damn guns away - or, let Darwins law sort it out which will take a generation or two...

    •  BS (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      gramofsam1, ranger995, burlydee

      What a cowardly outlook of the world. If you throw a punch at me a shoot you ten times in the back, yellow belly chikeshit cowardly way to see the world.

      Pushing someone or tripping them can also kill, are those also homicidal attacks? Can you shoot anyone that shoves you 10 times in the back?

      •  See the link I posted above. (0+ / 0-)

        A single punch can result in death.

        Is a punch, a push, a trip homicidal?  It certainly shows depraved indifference to a person's life.

        If a person punched you and knocked you down, then said he was going to get a gun to finish you off, would you just sit there and wait for him to come back and shoot you?  Would you run away so that you're the one getting shot in the back?

        xxdr zombiexx is exactly right.  Don't start shit.  If Brown hadn't started shit, he'd still be alive.

        •  No (0+ / 0-)

          I will do what any normal person will do run away and maybe call the cops.

          As for starting shit: you are not judge, jury and executor of all you slights or perceived slights. That is lawlessness, vigilantism and he who lives by the sword...

        •  Are you kidding? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          carrps

          Throw a punch and you can get charged with assault/battery.  Throwing a punch is not "attempted murder" any more than spitting on the sidewalk in front of someone you don't like.

          If the result of throwing the punch is to cause someone's death, that perpetrator would most likely be charged with manslaughter.  It's unlikely that throwing a punch would be considered attempted murder in any court in the US.

          "There are times when even normal men must spit in their hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken

          by rwgate on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 01:52:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I think you could argue (0+ / 0-)

      throwing a punch is assault and COULD BE attempted murder.
      But not every punch is attempted murder.
      If I slap you lightly, and your glasses fall off, and you wander into traffic, and get hit by a car, I wouldn't consider that attempted murder.
      If I slap you silly for no reason, you fall and die, then it's up to the courts to sort out motive and appropriate punishment.

    •  While walking away to get a gun, (0+ / 0-)

      Brown was no threat. Hell, for all we knew at the time, Brown could have been set to drive away (to another state, even!) to  get a gun. Brown would not have been a threat until he actually had a weapon in his hands.

      Any interaction or argument between the two of them before Brown turned around and left is either a separate set of offences or is completely irrelevant.

      Strengthen the Senate! ROCK THE HOUSE!

      by mwm341 on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 12:05:31 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  If the US govt put out tourist warnings for people (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Duckmg, ichibon

    telling them the danger of being shot is too great then and FL lost a lot of $$$ I think the law would change pretty fast.

    48forEastAfrica - Donate to Oxfam> "It is better to light a candle than to curse the darkness." Edna St.V. Millay

    by slouching on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 09:47:25 PM PDT

  •  I think some more facts are in order (4+ / 0-)
    The report states, that on the night Brown was shot, he “sought out Thriemer and physically attacked him. All of the evidence clearly supports a reasonable belief by Thriemer that his life was in imminent danger, giving Thriemer immunity from criminal prosecution.”

    The report also states, “all of the evidence supports a reasonable belief that Brown was about to arm himself in an attempt to obtain money from Thriemer. The use of deadly force to prevent this forcible felony is also justified by the statue.”

    The following was noted in the report: “An addiction to crack cocaine, as well as a drug debt, apparently caused him to become increasingly violent, aggressive and threatening, and ultimately led to his death.”

    Source: http://www.ocalapost.com/...

    If the victim in this case was genuinely attempting to end the confrontation, and flee, then no, the shooting was not justified...under traditional self defence or stand your ground.

    The key here is whether, when the victim, Brown, was "walking away" was he intending to retreat, or was he doing something to further the violent confrontation (like attempting to get a gun, and the State apparently believes). If Thriemer has a reasonable belief that his life was in danger at this point, then the shooting, under the Florida SYG law, is justified and he had no duty to attempt retreat.

    I'm not saying it was OK that he apparently shot this guy multiple times in the back...it wasn't. But the contention in the comments here that the victim was attempting to end the confrontation and retreat is apparently not the conclusion of law enforcement or the State Attorney's office down there.

    Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

    by Pi Li on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 09:54:40 PM PDT

    •  Pi Li... if you don't live in Florida then you (5+ / 0-)

      just don't know how corrupt the FDLE and SA's are down here....Their conclusions don't mean squat.

      The right is about as wrong as it gets and please help veterans ...Thanks ! United Veterans of America

      by Vetwife on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 03:17:55 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        qphilo, Neo Control, Kentucky Kid

        What "corruption" do you think was involved in this decision not to prosecute?  

        Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

        by Pi Li on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 06:06:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  It is corrupt to not treat people fairly under (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          a2nite

          the law regardless of their cultural, lifestyle, race or anything else...Picking and choosing who to prosecute  based on the past is not what America is about.   Not worth the time.. Not important enough to matter...I guarantee you had Rick Scott's buddy and another buddy die under the same circumstances.... some one would stand trial...Their money would buy equal justice.  This life just did not matter to those who did not prosecute.

          The right is about as wrong as it gets and please help veterans ...Thanks ! United Veterans of America

          by Vetwife on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 08:26:15 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  What I don't understand (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      carrps

      is why Brown, who apparently was trying to collect money from another drug dealer, whom he knew to be armed, left his own gun in his car.  And why, knowing that the other person was armed, announced that he was going to get his gun and shoot him.  Why did he say he was going to get his gun when he'd already been the physically agressive party who had repeatedly beaten Theimer?  Why did he need a gun when he was attacking someone who did not respond to the beating?

      Someone is lying.  Theimer should at least  have been held barring a hearing on the shooting.

      "There are times when even normal men must spit in their hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken

      by rwgate on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 02:02:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  My Tampa flight was delayed (9+ / 0-)

    almost four hours and by the time I'd driven to my 89-year-old dad’s place in central Florida it was 3AM. He's real forgetful, has become paranoid about home invasions (despite a totally crime-free neighborhood) and sleeps with a revolver under his pillow. This is a vet of the Battle of Midway and a sober former insurance executive made hair-trigger loco by NRA and right-wing fear machine. Finding the door locked and lights out I elected to sleep until daylight in the back of my rental car.

  •  So is there any way for the folks here (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chi

    to put some heat on this DA?

    Or are we just idle spectators?

    •  You're idle spectators (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Neo Control

      Or at least you should be.

      Any "DA" (in Florida they're SA's) who prosecutes a case because a bunch of bloggers, most of whom don't even live in her/his State, demand it, should be removed from office.

      It's happened before in Florida (putting someone on trial without sufficient evidence due to public pressure) and the results weren't pretty.

      Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

      by Pi Li on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 07:08:15 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  If your refering to Zimmerman (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        white blitz

        It was police and prosecutorial incompetence that lost them the case.  If they had treated the case seriously as a potential homicide from the beginning the trial would not have been a travesty.  As to the verdict that is still in question that would be up to the jury to decide.

  •  Could do without all the F words. SemDem (0+ / 0-)

    Interesting article and I think that, no matter what happened during the fight, if you walk up to a person who isn't threatening you any longer and shoot him in the back, you're a murderer. It's a wonder this case hasn't had more national attention. I guess the news channels are preoccupied with Gaza, Islamic fundaMENTALists making advances in Syria and Lebanon and the latest atrocity in Afghanistan.

    SemDem, if you want to be taken a little  more seriously as a journalist, even an  unpaid journalist such as a Kos blogger, how about learning how to write an article showing some class. Like, without a bunch of unnecessary F bombs. I know you're angry about this. But cursing about it won't change anything. It just makes me think you're a low class potty mouth.

    "Love Is Why We're Here"

    by Paniolo Joe on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 10:43:58 PM PDT

  •  Don't you know this... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tommymet

    ...is just a property crime.  The one man's lord should sue the other man's lord for loss of a perfectly good servile.

    We Glory in war, in the shedding of human blood. What fools we are.

    by delver rootnose on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 10:56:55 PM PDT

  •  Immensly disturbing. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Miggles

    Not even the ridiculously romanticized libertarian 18th century approved of back shooters. In fact, I'm guessing he now has that stigma amongst his fellow SYG supporters.

    Florida must be a petri dish for ALEC. Maybe they envision a "Westworld" sort of place to go and hilariously shoot poor people.

    “...I'm glad I'm not afraid to be lazy!” ― Augustus Mc Crea, "Lonesome Dove"

    by nutherhumanbeing on Tue Aug 05, 2014 at 11:00:16 PM PDT

  •  Sent $50 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    SemDem

    Glad I could help. I hope it does some FUCKING GOOD. Fuckin A yeah. Free speech is awesome.

  •  Make that (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tommymet, SemDem, Eagles92, MaggieLeftNY

    Free speech is fucking awesome. At least that is what my ACLU button says.

  •  So, I am full of stupid questions tonight (0+ / 0-)
    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
    So, if am reading the diary right, the Florida legislature, has provided a means for a person to unreasonably seize another's life without probable cause supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized?  or does the law act as oath or affirmation in lieu of any warrant?  If a LEO were to do this, I am fairly sure that a ruling of excessive force would be levied and the LEO would lose their job, but for a non-deputized citizen to commit such an act it is legal and protected?  That is some seriously f'ed up shit there...

    ''The guarding of military and diplomatic secrets at the expense of informed representative government provides no real security for our Republic.'' - Justice Hugo L. Black of the Supreme Court

    by geekydee on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 02:51:41 AM PDT

  •  In fear for my life (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tommymet

       So what if I am in the area of this incident? I see the fight, I see the guy walking away. I see the knucklehead getting his gun, I see him shoot the guy in the back. I would be in fear for my life being around that. Do I have the right to shoot this A-Hole that has the gun? I can see how this is turning into a perverted wild west mentality.

  •  Tipped & reced (0+ / 0-)

    I voted Tuesday, May 6, 2014 because it is my right, my responsibility and because my parents moved from Alabama to Ohio to vote. Unfortunately, the republicons want to turn Ohio into Alabama.

    by a2nite on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 04:01:08 AM PDT

  •  Here it is... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rwgate

    Florida Statutes: Title XLVI, Chapter 776, Section 776.012
    Use or threatened use of force in defense of person:

    "(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use 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 the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.

    "(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use 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. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be."

    (Italics added)

    I support Stand Your Ground laws but, for the life of me, I don't see how they apply in this case.

    In fairness, there were some omissions from SemDem's recounting of the incident. According to a July 31 report by Orlando TV station WKMG, Marion County prosecutors said Brown had been "threatening to kill Thriemer for months" and other reports indicate Brown is the one that instigated the incident by punching Thriemer in the face.

    The incident happened on July 9th and the decision not to file charges didn't come until July 31st, so apparently somebody did at least some investigation into the matter.

    Still, it's hard to accept the outcome when Thriemer had other options. If the threats had been made and Thriemer was in fear of his life, he could have gotten a restraining order against Brown although, as the recent ad put out by Everytown for Gun Safety shows, restraining orders are pretty much useless if a person is really determined to commit violence.

    Thriemer could also have called police and filed assault and battery charges against Brown. At that time, he could have told police that Brown had made threats against him, which could have been an aggravating circumstance and resulted in a heavier sentence for Brown.

    Even with all of that, Thriemer's legal use of deadly force should have ended immediately when Brown broke off the assault.

    And I think that may be where the problem lies.

    I read all of the sections of Chapter 776 and was not able to find anything covering when the right to use force in self-defense ends. This isn't just Stand Your Ground; it's the entire Chapter on lawful use of force in self-defense. This may be covered elsewhere in Florida law, but I couldn't find it in this chapter.

    Perhaps instead of trying to repeal the Florida law, which seems unlikely, it would be a better idea to persuade the Florida legislature to amend the self-defense law to add a requirement to end the use of force when the immediate threat has ended.

  •  Revenge killings are now legal in FL.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tommymet

    ....all a revenge-seeker needs to do to secure his revenge is to confront the person and incite some sort of confrontation, however trifling, and then shoot him.

    "I was in fear for my life" are apparently the words in the magic incantation that shields you from murder charges in FL. Or even an investigation.

    Yeah, my reluctance to accept contracts for jobs in FL is apparently the right course of action. Fuck Florida.

    "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

    by leftykook on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 05:35:37 AM PDT

  •  Unbelievable (0+ / 0-)

    KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

    by fcvaguy on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 05:51:05 AM PDT

  •  Charge the shooter with this statute, then go from (0+ / 0-)

    Stalking

    Fla. Stat. § 784.048. Stalking; definitions; penalties. (2012)

    (1) As used in this section, the term:

    (a) "Harass" means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose.

    (b) "Course of conduct" means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose. The term does not include constitutionally protected activity such as picketing or other organized protests.

    (c) "Credible threat" means a verbal or nonverbal threat, or a combination of the two, including threats delivered by electronic communication or implied by a pattern of conduct, which places the person who is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family members or individuals closely associated with the person, and which is made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat to cause such harm. It is not necessary to prove that the person making the threat had the intent to actually carry out the threat. The present incarceration of the person making the threat is not a bar to prosecution under this section.

    (d) "Cyberstalk" means to engage in a course of conduct to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, words, images, or language by or through the use of electronic mail or electronic communication, directed at a specific person, causing substantial emotional distress to that person and serving no legitimate purpose.

    (2) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

    (3) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person and makes a credible threat to that person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

    (4) A person who, after an injunction for protection against repeat violence, sexual violence, or dating violence pursuant to s. 784.046, or an injunction for protection against domestic violence pursuant to s. 741.30, or after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the subject person or that person's property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

    (5) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks a child under 16 years of age commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

    (6) A law enforcement officer may arrest, without a warrant, any person that he or she has probable cause to believe has violated this section.

    (7) A person who, after having been sentenced for a violation of s. 794.011, s. 800.04, or s. 847.0135(5) and prohibited from contacting the victim of the offense under s. 921.244, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks the victim commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

    (8) The punishment imposed under this section shall run consecutive to any former sentence imposed for a conviction for any offense under s. 794.011, s. 800.04, or s. 847.0135(5).

    (9)
    (a) The sentencing court shall consider, as a part of any sentence, issuing an order restraining the defendant from any contact with the victim, which may be valid for up to 10 years, as determined by the court. It is the intent of the Legislature that the length of any such order be based upon the seriousness of the facts before the court, the probability of future violations by the perpetrator, and the safety of the victim and his or her family members or individuals closely associated with the victim.

    (b) The order may be issued by the court even if the defendant is sentenced to a state prison or a county jail or even if the imposition of the sentence is suspended and the defendant is placed on probation.

  •  Global warming can't come fast enough .... I se... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tommymet

    Global warming can't come fast enough ....

    I see a future FL that is made of up of nothing but pontoon party boats, all tied together.

  •  You all need to read the fucking report. (6+ / 0-)

    The "victim" had been stalking and beating the shit out of the shooter for some time. He said he had a gun in his car and was going to his vehicle to retrieve it and kill the shooter. Multiple witnesses, including people who knew neither the shooter nor the "victim", corroborated this.  

    Literally an open and shut self defense case.

  •  per your update (0+ / 0-)

    to explain that neither man was an angel but that it didn't matter.  I agree.   It really shouldn't come into the determination of whether one of them broke the law this time.  It shouldn't also not be determined that the state or society's interest in stopping murder is because only good people are murdered.  Murder is wrong, it violates the generally accepted morality and it leads to greater violence if there is no accepted mechanism (the law and courts) to mete out the punishment.   If you want to live in the wild west or a war lord state, then let individuals decide on their own who deserves to live or die and enforce their judgments as they will.

    Just let me know where you plan to live so I can live elsewhere in a civilized manner.

  •  Years before the SYG law was passed, a (0+ / 0-)

    Pasco County jury acquitted a man who had beaten another man nearly to death as the guy was trying to get to his car after a confrontation in the parking lot of a bar.
       The defense was that the accused was in reasonable fear for his life because he thought that the victim might have a gun in the car.
       So the prosecution's lack of action in this case has some basis.
       As to the question of whether you could open fire on someone openly carrying a firearm: Good chance.
       Unless there were witnesses to establish that you acted entirely without provocation, under SYG you probably wouldn't even be arrested.
     

  •  Florida has, apparently, legalized murder. n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tytalus

    "To take another person's life from the bench is no better than to take another person's life from the street"

    by commonmass on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 07:55:20 AM PDT

  •  You know, Florida has been really lucky in the (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    white blitz, a2nite, Eagles92, nominalize

    last decade. No major hurricanes. In fact a good chunk of the population has never been through one at all. What happens first, immediately after, is that the gas stations run out of gas, usually with a mile-long line of cars waiting to refuel. I have seen fistfights, screaming matches, intentional fender-benders - all manner of desperate human action, all for a gallon of gas. All in the midst of tornadic activity and downed power lines of course.

    Anyway I can't help thinking that this past decade's pro-NRA messaging/hysteria is going to make the next natural disaster into a shooting battle. I'm thinking of all of those Wal-Mart/Target open carriers, 'securing' their bottled water supply. And this is before the power goes out and the gas pumps run dry.

    Maybe time to move.

  •  What's the wording in the law, about $ penalties? (0+ / 0-)

    I believe you, and am horrified by this, I'm just curious how it is worded in the law?

    the law states there are financial penalties for police if the gunman is acquitted under Stand Your Ground.
  •  I will never set foot in Florida (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite

    unless and until SYG is rescinded. I'll spend my money elsewhere.

    •  What about the other 30 states that have SYG laws? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Neo Control, elena2

      Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

      by Pi Li on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 09:35:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  A lot of those states (0+ / 0-)

        have SYG laws, but only a few like Florida, let people like George Zimmerman actually stalk his victim, continue the confrontation, and walk after committing murder by claiming self defense.

        Most SYG states restrict where and when you can claim self-defense.  There actually has to be a threat of death, not just a "perceived" threat.  You have a duty to leave the scene of the threat if possible.  You can't just say "I was afraid he was going to hurt me" and fire away.

        In this case, Theimer was armed and Brown wasn't.  Theimer killed Brown by shooting him in the back as Brown was walking away.  Knowing that Theimer was armed and Brown wasn't, just who should have been in fear of their life?  And really, 10 shots?  How many shots in the back does it take to put  down a potential assailant?

        "There are times when even normal men must spit in their hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." - H.L. Mencken

        by rwgate on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 02:24:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Um, no (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          qphilo
          Most SYG states restrict where and when you can claim self-defense.  There actually has to be a threat of death, not just a "perceived" threat.  You have a duty to leave the scene of the threat if possible.  
          If you think this, you don't understand what SYG is. It doesn't have to be an "actual" threat of death, in ANY state, SYG or not. The person making the self defence or SYG claim must merely have a reasonable belief that death or bodily harm is imminent.

          For example, if I point a pistol at you and say I'm going to kill you, or say I'm going to get a pistol from my car and kill you, it doesn't matter that my pistol is in fact not loaded, or a replica...as long as you believe it's loaded and I intend to kill you, my "perceived" fear of death or great bodily harm from you is enough. In all 50 states, SYG or not.

          If I have a bottle of water, but I tell you it's acid and I'm going to throw it at you, it doesn't matter whether I can really cause you death or great bodily harm with water. All that matters is that you believe that I can. In all 50 states, SYG or not.

          Granted, the belief regarding death has to be reasonable, but the threat of death certainly does not have to be objectively "real". That's nonsense.

          And the whole point of SYG is to take the traditional "Castle Doctrine" outside of the home, and to eliminate that restriction on "where" you can claim self defence. That's it. And SYG removes the duty to retreat (in most states that have the law)...which is why it's called "Stand Your Ground".

          Dammit Jim, I'm a lawyer, not a grammarian. So sue me.

          by Pi Li on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 02:40:40 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Not those, either. --n/t (0+ / 0-)

        Strengthen the Senate! ROCK THE HOUSE!

        by mwm341 on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 12:19:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  reasonable people need to wrest political (0+ / 0-)

    control from the crackers who still run the state.

  •  As long as it is peasant on peasant killing (4+ / 0-)

    They will do nothing.  

  •  My working assumption is that (0+ / 0-)

    the last person standing his ground in Florida will be the best shot. He will also be the last person in the state. Hopefully some of the others will get out safely before that point.

    We have only just begun and none too soon.

    by global citizen on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 09:17:42 AM PDT

  •  perhaps a federal case can be made to arrest him (0+ / 0-)

    for - damn, i can't remember the term - but i do recall feds stepping in when states didn't to charge someone for killing someone else.

    anybody out there remember?

    damn - i'm so up to the eyeballs in dog laws right now, my brain can't do anything else!

    EdriesShop Is it kind? is it true? is it necessary?

    by edrie on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 10:15:44 AM PDT

  •  Stand Your Ground more succinctly... (0+ / 0-)

    "The deceased in the confrontation is guilty."  Come to think of it, wasn't that the purpose of duels?

  •  Christ on a cracker (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joe from Lowell, meinoregon

    Florida is worse than Dodge City. I will NEVER set foot in that batshit crazy state. Maybe global warming will take care of the problem, sigh.

    •  I despise Florida. (0+ / 0-)

      I hate that the streets are 150 feet wide, with radiuses like off ramps, so you can't walk anywhere.

      I hate that the gas stations have flower beds larger than the house lots in my city.

      I once saw a development with a big brick wall around it, with big, fancy signage that read "Willow Farms: A Deed-Restricted Community."

      They try to sell that place as a paradise; I hope I never have to set foot there again.

      Art is the handmaid of human good.

      by joe from Lowell on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 12:03:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Everyone feel safer now?! (0+ / 0-)

    Feel trickled on yet?

    by War4Sale on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 11:29:25 AM PDT

  •  I'm sorry, what state was this? Delaware? (0+ / 0-)

    Montana? New Mexico? Oregon? Maine? Michigan?

    Oh. Florida. Quelle surprise!

    Florida law enforcement, covering themselves with glory yet again.

    Art is the handmaid of human good.

    by joe from Lowell on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 11:59:55 AM PDT

  •  Maybe this is why CSI: Miami was cancelled (0+ / 0-)

    They could no longer arrest anyone for murder because they all claim they feared for the lives.

    Stretched to its absurd logical conclusion, a little kid could piss off an adult by throwing a soft rubber ball that ricocheted and hit his head so the adult grabs a gun shoots the little kid and claims he feared for his life after the ball hit him.

  •  BOYCOTT STATES WITH STUPID LAWS (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MaggieLeftNY, jgand

    Until people begin to use the power of the almighty dollar and their feet to take their lives, careers and business to states that do NOT have laws like this, we will see this kind of tragedy and many others continue.

    Don't vacation in Florida. Don't live in Florida. Don't buy products from Florida. Don't send your kids to college in Florida. Corporations and businesses should refuse to move to or expand--heck, remain in Florida.

    And make sure the good people of Florida know it's because of things like Stand Your Ground.

  •  Rick Scott, standing your ground (0+ / 0-)

    Stand Your Ground; find Rick Scott he's murdering Fla. Citizens your life's in Danger find him and stand your ground! Defend your family's! Stand your ground your lives are in danger! Progressive Books & Blogs fah451bks.wordpress.com  

  •  Stand your ground (0+ / 0-)

    Agree 100% and I live there!  You would think the Rs would be ashamed to be represented by a crook of the magnitude of Scott.  He's beginning to make Nixon look not so bad! And that's pretty tough!

  •  I'm Afraid (0+ / 0-)

    I'm in fear of my life because of the f_ing Florida Legislature. Does that mean I get to shoot one of the f_ing idiots? Gee, I sure hope so. Because that's the only way this f_ing law is going to get repealed. As long as it's just the peasants who are shooting each other, the law will stand. When "important people" (like a few of the f_ing idiots in the f_ing Legislature) get shot, the law will repealed. Fast.

    •  I wonder (0+ / 0-)

      : )

      if it would be possible to SUE the legislature - all of it, separately and collectively - for creating or enabling hostile working and living environments.

      Of course, it'd be expensive, so maybe a class action would fit. Or maybe other funding could be found.

      Kickstarter, anyone?

      : )

      Strengthen the Senate! ROCK THE HOUSE!

      by mwm341 on Mon Aug 11, 2014 at 12:29:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Shoot first, ask questions later. (0+ / 0-)

    It would appear the only way you can't use Stand Your Ground as a defense in Florida is if you are dead on the ground.

  •  I'm still waiting in terror for (0+ / 0-)

    a case of someone walking down the street, shooting every minority they come across, simply because they fear them all.  

    This case makes me think the defense would work.

    And would that not open the door to Klan-like raids on Black neighborhoods?

    "The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." -- Neil DeGrasse Tyson/// "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." -- Aldous Huxley

    by ThePhlebob on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 01:34:54 PM PDT

  •  Shot in the BACK? (0+ / 0-)

    And the guy was just "standing his ground?" Good Lord, I am so glad I got out of that state.

    If Florida were a human being (and that ruling may be coming soon, if I know this SCOTUS), it would need to be institutionalized.

  •  Shocking!! I am so glad I visited Florida long ... (0+ / 0-)

    Shocking!! I am so glad I visited Florida long ago (in the 80s) because I will NEVER step foot in that state again! Again I say SHOCKING.

  •  Testimony? That would only be possible if the w... (0+ / 0-)

    Testimony? That would only be possible if the witnesses were under oath. I think you mean "statement".

  •  Nothing wrong with self defense (0+ / 0-)

    Why do you pearl-clutching anti-gun zealots constantly side with the thugs?  What the hell is wrong with you?

  •  SYG may be a good thing :( (0+ / 0-)

    I think the next time I see someone approaching me carrying a weapon I'll just put one between their eyes.
    If someone is openly carrying a weapon how do I know their mental status? Since I don't then I am in fear for my life and justified in protecting myself.

    I'll avoid doing that to cops showing a badge but all others are targets.
    I guess this make SYG a good thing.

    No country can be both ignorant and free - Thomas Jefferson

    by fjb on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 02:45:30 PM PDT

  •  "Both were drug dealers that ran with gangs..."... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Reepicheep

    "Both were drug dealers that ran with gangs..."

    Say no more. NHI.

  •  What are the requirements of SYG? (0+ / 0-)

    Why couldn't someone walking down the street just pull a gun and shoot someone walking towards them and claim that the were in "fear for their life"?

    Seems that this would be just as reasonable as shooting someone walking away in the back.

  •  Ok all you snowbirders (0+ / 0-)

    If you are not a gun owner or do not wish travel with your guns to Florida maybe it is time to bypass a winter in Florida - you might not make it home.

  •  Good article (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite

    but it omits something that's often overlooked: until quite recently, in every state in the land, someone who was claiming to have killed another person in self-defense had to convince the jury, on a balance of probabilities, that he was indeed acting in self-defense; in states with SYG laws, the accused only has to claim that he was acting in self defense - the burden of proof then shifts to the  prosecution to prove, to the much higher standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was not.

  •  Remember Conservatives are "Fear" Based (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Amber6541

    Recent psychological studies of conservatives have shown that the decision making mental processes of a conservative is that of a coward.....

    Unlike the Courageous, risk taking behavior of your average ' Indiana Jones.' Liberal/Progressive personality types who almost never think about themselves when the Call of Duty rises.

    The Conservative Personality more likely than not resembles a weasel who never acts unless success is guaranteed. The Batman's riddler character would be a fitting example . Only acting if he was sure of superior fire power.

    this explains why the little wimps are in love white the GOP vote grabbing tactic giving them more guns in exchange for votes.  The only good vote getter they have for the lonely scared white guy demographics  ...that simple      

  •  stand your ground (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Amber6541

    I will never go to Florida again until this insane law is repealed.

  •  The writer needs to invest in a good thesaurus. (0+ / 0-)

    I agree with his sentiments completely, but his OVERuse of the "f-word" is annoying.  NO noun, verb, adjective or adverb should be used more than is absolutely necessary.  The English language has PLENTY of synonyms, and his use of the word is tiresome, and frankly rather sophomoric.  I don't object to the use of Anglo-Saxon words for bodily functions, but to the laziness of the writer.
    P.S. The perception that Anglo-Saxon words are "bad words" and taboo is a relic of the Norman Conquest in 1066.  Words for bodily functions in the language of the defeated, who became the lower class, were considered unacceptable, while the equivalent French (and Latinate) words were not.  So, one can say "fornicate," "fecal material" and "accursed" in "polite company" (i.e. upper class folks) but not "fuck," "shit"and "damn."

  •  No vacation (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite

    for me and my family in Florida anymore. I'm done with that state and I live in Texas, which is bad enough.
    We were planning on a vacation in Clearwater this fall, but it's not going to happen. We don't want to be killed and we want to PROTEST what's happening in this state by not spending any money there!
    Lately words fail me. Will all this go down in the history books as "The Dark Ages"? My husband and I are immigrants, we moved to the United States 23 years ago. Our children were born here. What has happened and is still happening in this country over the last years is something we could not have imagined in our blackest nightmares.
    It is kind of ironic that our first two visits to the United States, before we even moved here, were to Florida. Our third visit to New Mexico convinced us that we wanted to live here. Later, unfortunately, we ended up in Texas.
    I can tell you one thing though: if I ever see one of the Open Carry Texas freaks - and chances are I will - I'll probably lose it - big time. I will try to restrain myself, but I don't think I'll be able to. I am beyond outrage.

  •  Violence breeds violence. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Amber6541

    What that means is the best friend, or brother, or cousin of the man who was shot in the back is going to want to get revenge, and might try to reciprocate. And while I'm not going to shed tears for the murderer, there are innocent people to consider. It doesn't stop with one dead person.  

    "YOPP!" --Horton Hears a Who

    by Reepicheep on Wed Aug 06, 2014 at 04:05:28 PM PDT

  •  Florida is fast becoming (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite

    the most unbelievably stupid, redneck, crazy mothers, shoot you in the back 'cause I was scared -- who in their right mind would ever want to visit or move to this hell hole. Republicans? Oh, that's who.

  •  Writing (0+ / 0-)

    The quality of the writing on KOS. never the best, has degenerated into high school quality replete with the inability to make a point without repeated use of the word "fuck" and its derivatives.

  •  Who is the one responsible (0+ / 0-)

    for the police being able to be sued with regard to the stand your ground?  What is the name of the specific individual or individuals who got that into the law?  When STG was first discussed, it was to STG at your home if you felt threatened.  It was not meant to be used everywhere.  If I can, I want to make sure the person or persons who are trying to control the police (and ultimately the taxpayers) with the threat of lawsuits are removed from office.  And for those who are saying boycott Florida?  Remember, the boycott will only hurt the common citizen trying to make a living.  The politicians won't get touched by a boycott.

  •  The only thing (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Amber6541

    The only thing that will lead to this idiotic Shoot First law in Florida is if people start refusing to go to Florida unless the law is changed. Yes, I am saying we need to boycott Florida.

  •  I use this example for every SYG apologist. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, Amber6541

    Gunsmoke and every western you have ever watched had a few rules: if you shot an unarmed man OR shot a man in the back, you would hang the next day no questions asked.  The only time that didn't happen is when the town was run by crooks.

  •  I'm fucking embarrassed (0+ / 0-)

    that I live in Florida.  So- yes.  Fuck you Rick Scott--criminal.

    Cheers

  •  If you gave the USA a pennicillin shot (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Amber6541

    the needle should be inserted in Florida.

  •  Florida: The Deadwood of America (0+ / 0-)

    Florida: The Deadwood of America

  •  Background (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Amber6541, white blitz
    In a new report, prosecutors say Brown had been threatening to kill Thriemer for months, so when Thriemer was confronted outside the store, he was justified, via the state's "stand your ground" law, in using deadly force, officials said.
    http://www.clickorlando.com/...

    Just wondering what comments would be like were the confrontation between a woman with an order of protection and a boyfriend with a history of making threats.

  •  I do not know the text of the Florida law (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Amber6541, white blitz

    That said, I cannot imagine that the written law is what it has come to be as practiced.  My home state has what has been called a "stand your ground law".  Actually, it did not enact a new law at all.  It merely removed the words "duty to retreat" from the statute specifying the circumstances under which a citizen can use deadly force to protect him or herself.  Prior to the change, in order for self-defense using deadly force to be "justifiable", one had to be backed into a corner by an armed assailant with no means to escape or evade the assailant.  Defending oneself with a gun almost invariably led to felony assault or manslaughter charges, regardless of the circumstances.

    I hope most will agree that THAT legislative change was reasonable.  What is going on in Florida is something entirely different.  If all that one has to do is claim that one "fears for one's life"....the list of situations in which one can legally shoot someone has to be nearly endless.  Of course, the majority involve situations where one is in contact, one way or the other, with "one of those people".  The term covers a number of identities and classes--feel free to insert your own.

    But let's assume you are "one of those people" and are assaulted by a police officer--in uniform or not, on duty or not.  Your assailant is a trained killer with a license to be so, armed with a variety of weapons and knowledgeable in using them, and possibly nothing more than a thug with a badge (apologies to law enforcement professionals who are worthy of the name--we all know there are exceptions).  Can you be reasonably "in fear for your life"?  You'd have to be insane not to be.

    So, should you be assaulted by a police officer, under Florida law, can you legally shoot him?  I presume I do not need to answer my own question.

  •  Southern insanity. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Amber6541

    While most of the residents are probably good people, I will never set foot anywhere south of the Mason-Dixon Line.

    If there is red dirt, you just might get hurt.

  •  Pray for me. I live in Florida. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Amber6541

    Pray for me. I live in Florida.

  •  Remember Casey Anthony? (0+ / 0-)

    How could Anyone believe that their Mother would be
    celebrating after they died as a child?
    What type of people believe that a parent with any type
    of conscience does this? I was horrified that on the media there are those who believed that this Mother had the right to celebrate?   I even do not enjoy the 4th of July celebration due to the nature of why we celebrate it. So, that's me however could you out there do what this woman did? Someone needs to sue the state of Florida
    not President Obama as in we have bigger fish to fry in Florida. Can you eat fish anymore?
    I advocate the Taoist statement quote  that to allow for these horrifying things and their violence makes us like them.
    Unsettling  if your sane I'm sure!

  •  Let me get this straight... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Amber6541

    You know who makes me fear for my life? Rick Scott and AG Pam Bondi. Does that mean its OK for me to travel to Florida and shoot them? This is NOT a threat btw. I'm just trying to clarify my legal position.

  •  Murder is legal in FL, I don't even know why th... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, Amber6541

    Murder is legal in FL, I don't even know why this is a story. Writing about someone getting away with murder in FL is like writing a story about someone buying milk at the grocery store...duh?

  •  WOW (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Amber6541

    I guess in florida it's kill or be killed -basically.

  •  That's just great, Floriduh! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Amber6541

    Let's let shooters go free............ and arrest a few pot smokers instead.....

  •  Just Move. (0+ / 0-)

    Pick a state, pick any state that doesn't have one of the "stand your ground" or open carry or allows concealed weapons in bars. There are very few places I feel comfortable any longer.  Don't spend any money any where you are uncomfortable or fear for your life. When there is no one left in the state except gun wackos, they will kill each other off and the rest of us will be better for it.

    •  "Gun whackos" are no worse (0+ / 0-)

      No any different, than "anti-gun whackos". Whackos of either stripe do us all a disservice.

      In point of fact, the stand your ground statute is nothing new, nor anything so egregious and outlandishly insane. What is, is the reverse that you seek. The legal impediment of any persons right to defend their own person, or that of another.

      Self defense is, was, and always has been the law of the land, and a matter of simple common sense. The problem is that common sense no longer exists, with people such as yourself, and the bigots who abuse the law.

  •  Ironically..it doesn't work for women.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Amber6541

    We currently have a case here in Fl where the wife shot a "warning shot" in the air at her husband..NEVER SHOOTING HIM, yet she was arrested and charged with attempted murder!!! Only recently, did they allow her to be released and have another trial. So, obviously, the law doesn't work for women, only men.
     

  •  Florida has legalized murder (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite

    There is no sugar-coating, this barbaric shithole of a state has legalized murder. Tourists & conventions should treat it like a war zone and avoid it.

  •  Great! (0+ / 0-)

    Now murder is legal!! Way to go!!  We are going to Hell in a handbasket!!

  •  Florida is disgusting! We need a Bob wire fence... (0+ / 0-)

    Florida is disgusting! We need a Bob wire fence at that states borders. I can't wait to see the end results of Florida's Government come to roost!

  •  Fear is a funny thing. (0+ / 0-)

      If I arrange to meet a person that causes me fear, can I shoot them?

       Do you have to be living or staying in Florida to be covered by their SYG law? As opposed to just passing through?

       Can Floridian's carry their SYG law with them to other States?

       Are these laws the result of ALEC? Hmmmm they cause me fear also.

    •  Inane and nonsensical post (0+ / 0-)

      1. If you set up the meeting it for the sole purpose of this shooting, it is premeditation. If you get away with it, you are a coward and a monster. However, even under the New York standard of "attempt to flee", you could win this very argument that you posit. Your argument is flawed.

      2. If you are in Florida, you are covered under any other Florida statute or law. Therefore, why would this be any different? The relevant factor would be: Are you legally in possession of the firearm that you employ?

      3. Just as with any other state or citizen, Floridians are subject to the laws and statues of the locations to which they bring themselves. Your question is specious.

      4. The last question is as rhetorical and specious as the first three, and does not deserve the dignity of a response.

      Hope this helps.

  •  Thank left-wing gun grabbers (0+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    Hidden by:
    Old Sailor

    As a so-called liberal, I have to point out to you that liberals have brought this travesty upon themselves. The Trayvon Martin travesty was originally the most egregious example of what liberals wrought, and now we have this.

    The course of action that liberals too often over pursue, and their comments illustrating their willingness and intention to backstab and push, to eliminate the rights of others, creates a rubberband effect resulting in an equal and opposite swing in law. When you say out of one face that you want "reasonable gun control" (which remains undefined for a purpose), and then out of your other face say your intention is to keep chipping away at firearm rights until they are abolished, what do you expect to happen??? And who started this fight to begin with? Your "victim", who may have been going to retrieve a firearm himself, or your shooter? Interestingly, you might notice that this little fact is not covered in the article. However, you do posit the circumstance, without saying what was actually the situation.

    After people, like myself, agreed to reasonable measures regard tobacco use, what did OUR side of the political aisle then do??? Every single thing that smokers, and politically conservative people claimed that they would. And then you wonder.

    In New York, if a burglar breaks into your own private home, your only legal right is to attempt to FLEE. Are you kidding me with this? Then, and only then, dependent upon a prosecutors zealotry and and courtroom acting abilities, does a person have any right what so ever, to attempt to defend his home, his person, or other persons. And you can't see a problem here??? Couple that with the basic and true fact that MONEY buys "justice", and what do you expect to happen?

    And this does not even cover such inanities as burglars falling through skylights, and successfully suing people for the resultant injuries, and "damages". If you can't understand how your current equation is working, and the how the resultant blow-back is caused, then you, Kos writer, are either ignorant, or intentionally blind. As are those people just like yourself.

    I think Trayvon Martin was cold bloodedly and premeditatively murdered. I think the lady who fired her weapon to ward of her violent husband, was entitled to the stand your ground defense. But you just continue to keep reaping what you have sown for all of us, with your zealotry, overreach, and abuse of the laws of this country.

    Thank you. Thank you all very, very much.

  •  I doubt you'll have to worry about Colt Thriemer.. (0+ / 0-)

    ... too much longer. As sure as God made sour green apples, somebody will be standing their ground against him sooner or later. With one shooting to his credit already, "fear for my life" will be a perfectly normal thing to claim when shooting him in the back.

    Same holds for the original freed murdered, George Zimmerman, as far as that goes. He'll get his just desserts one day just because he's him.

  •  stand you ground??? (0+ / 0-)

    the whole description of these actions: describing each participants warts and all, the fact that the victim was shot ten times in the back, drugs, threats, blah, blah sound like a comedy routine that snl dreamed up and would be funny except for the tragic outcome...what is wrong with florida and how many other really out-there cases will be called self defense or stand your ground for the populace to get tierd of this crap

  •  wtf? (0+ / 0-)

    Of course, a prosecuter would have that perspective—he's inbred!

  •  Ku "dumb clucks" Klan (0+ / 0-)

        Rick Scott, that long necked bald-headed bottle nosed reptile should be indicted and have the book thrown at him!!!  He is nothing but a white supremacist NAZI!

  •  Who in their right mind (0+ / 0-)

    would ever set foot in that state is beyond my comprehension. You will NOT see me there.

    Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.---George Orwell

    by okpkpkp on Sat Aug 09, 2014 at 11:56:00 AM PDT

  •   Does this count ?? (0+ / 0-)

     All Legislators that voted for this law cause me great fear for my life !

       Therefore if I take my machine gun to Tallahassee, due to my fear, and a legislator appears in my sight - I must have the right to end the cause of my fear. Without retreating of course.

       Did two gangs face off in a territory battle causing death and injury on both sides and SYG claimed by both sides resulted in no charges filed?

  •  Real, true, honest to goodness Fear of the NRA! (0+ / 0-)

       There are many people that fear what the NRA 'has' done, 'is' doing, and probably 'will' do causing a quality of life full of fear.

       SYG should apply in every face to face meeting of the fearful and those causing the fear.

       Apparently the incorrect interpretation of the 2nd Amendment applies to absolutely anything that falls under the heading of 'an arms!'

       If the Government has IT, we must have IT also for self defense. To protect US from US.

  •  It's open season on everyone in stupid Florida.... (0+ / 0-)

    I won't be going there or even getting close.  It is a frightening place, with stupid politics and even more stupid laws.  You folks can keep the sunshi-ty state for yourself.

  •  Koch's baby ALEC started this murderous law (0+ / 0-)

    We can thank the Koch's and ALEC who pushed (Or should I say bought) this law, and all of the others who would first begin a situation where it becomes a police state by arming morons, and then allowing so much brazen murder SYG, that people get fed up.(Ferguson). Then, here comes SWAT teams looking like they're fresh from Iraq.
     Indirectly "THIS IS" our new America. It happened because people won't vote and stop this, it happened because we sold the only messaging most of the public got, media.. It's that simple. If people voted these murderous people out in masses, so large that the GOP and DIEBOLD can't "fudge numbers"...we'd stand a chance.
    But until people get to the polls in such historic numbers, we can expect not only more of this, but a stepped up version of it daily. Until we become so used to it, that like guns in school, we forget to be horrified.
    As more crazy cowboys with guns feel the need to join in the slaughter or kill "just because they feel like it', people will rise up...and then be shot to death by the same people who "Protect and Serve"
    I feel your rage..I'm right there with you. My Dad was a detective in the PD in Florida, this kind of things has gone on a lot longer than people realized. Unfortunately the GOP handed a Supreme Court to those who felt the same way as the old KKK of old.

Meteor Blades, Thumb, Angie in WA State, Joe Bob, Mimikatz, Sylv, chuck utzman, vicki, fcvaguy, jazzmaniac, Chi, oofer, mwm341, deben, Timaeus, Gooserock, lost, bosdcla14, Sprinkles, karlpk, Shockwave, Lipstick Liberal, genethefiend, eeff, xynz, polecat, devtob, dpeifer1949, hubcap, Heart of the Rockies, missLotus, TracieLynn, EricS, sponson, cskendrick, susakinovember, whenwego, boadicea, otto, roses, Himself, jalbert, Iberian, Cedwyn, antirove, high uintas, wader, Quege, Texknight, tidalwave1, edrie, psnyder, pat bunny, ranger995, cosette, niteskolar, Jujuree, Penny Century, Steven Payne, hoof32, Catte Nappe, Dood Abides, Lilith, imicon, zerelda, Hillbilly Dem, Steven D, jcrit, Josiah Bartlett, murrayewv, sawgrass727, sb, maybeeso in michigan, Bluesee, marina, radarlady, Tinfoil Hat, jrooth, Ckntfld, ichibon, caul, CTPatriot, subtropolis, Lying eyes, Erik the Red, basquebob, viral, reflectionsv37, fixxit, eru, bleeding blue, majcmb1, where4art, ladybug53, Gordon20024, most peculiar mama, markdd, RichterScale, Tool, brentut5, Shotput8, FindingMyVoice, sodalis, jilikins, Rogneid, peacestpete, xaxnar, Jim R, begone, Philpm, martini, Kingsmeg, cybersaur, Mr Bojangles, Clytemnestra, edwardssl, profundo, dopper0189, Gorette, bastrop, seefleur, slampros, blueoasis, bren, StrayCat, twigg, agnostic, gooderservice, JVolvo, el cid, middleagedhousewife, anninla, Turbonerd, BlueMississippi, bumbi, nother lurker, rage, CA Nana, lastamendment, doingbusinessas, geekydee, Clive all hat no horse Rodeo, Madam Deb, kurt, Koleppski, Statusquomustgo, crystal eyes, Temmoku, Aaa T Tudeattack, tegrat, ammasdarling, pgm 01, timewarp, hooper, donnamarie, Habitat Vic, camlbacker, ColoTim, yoduuuh do or do not, Wino, edsbrooklyn, Cofcos, HeartlandLiberal, getlost, cyncynical, gchaucer2, Timmethy, keyscritter, Empower Ink, gizmo59, MKinTN, bkamr, salliezoo, amyzex, 6412093, OleHippieChick, Sixty Something, Youffraita, bill warnick, tvdude, lineatus, mikeconwell, beltane, Lujane, tofumagoo, pamelabrown, Cassandra Waites, smartdemmg, codairem, petulans, costello7, sewaneepat, BYw, Mayfly, billybam, GrannyOPhilly, 207wickedgood, BvueDem, Bule Betawi, christine20, arendt, greengemini, LinSea, Carol in San Antonio, CanyonWren, Ohiodem1, WakeUpNeo, fly on the wall, Calfacon, glitterlust, sfarkash, Tortmaster, astral66, kingfishstew, joe from Lowell, jpmassar, Nannyberry, nocynicism, Railfan, commonmass, NJpeach, gramofsam1, Susan Grigsby, blueyescryinintherain, jakedog42, mookins, appledown, samanthab, DiegoUK, NYWheeler, Jaimas, DrTerwilliker, nosleep4u, slice, Onomastic, kerflooey, Front Toward Enemy, spooks51, slowbutsure, implicate order, Mr MadAsHell, bootsykronos, FarWestGirl, Teiresias70, trumpeter, mrsgoo, marleycat, Carolyn in Oregon, Jasonhouse, IllanoyGal, Santa Susanna Kid, BarackStarObama, smoothnmellow, abbotkinney, merrily1000, wintergreen8694, enhydra lutris, corvaire, Liberal Mole, randomfacts, Joe Jackson, bakeneko, cailloux, Vatexia, jolux, Miggles, leftykook, caryltoo, nyer11Oak, bassinduo, DEMonrat ankle biter, ParkRanger, No one gets out alive, Laurel in CA, Mathazar, SuWho, wolf advocate, Flying Goat, IndieGuy, scyellowdogdem, nellgwen, oldcrow, barkingcat, a2nite, FloridaSNMOM, Trotskyrepublican, chicagobleu, Socalled Socialist, teabaggerssuckbalz, geojumper, MartyM, ClutchCargo, doroma, parakeet, wxorknot, tytalus, avsp, rat racer, Glen The Plumber, George3, Windowpane, BobTheHappyDinosaur, Stude Dude, Chaddiwicker, jusjtim35, countwebb, akadjian, Late Again, VeloDramatic, twocrows1023, TeamSarah4Choice, shockratees, broths, gypsytoo, PHScott, Joy of Fishes, HedwigKos, aresea, kmfmstar, HDTVGuy, howabout, Homer177, Emilyruth, Hey338Too, librarisingnsf, Patango, ChristineM, Retroactive Genius, Catkin, TheDuckManCometh, Rich Lyles, RUNDOWN, nancyjones, richardvjohnson, lisapaloma, Kaylin, ExpatGirl, Bartskid1, jbsoul, Fish Man, Penny GC, Old Sailor, Gurnt, ginimck, SirVantes, zmonkey, angiew1943, JimValent, paulex, hbk, CelticOm, ypochris, Cynthia Hobgood Strauss, windsong01, Gunnar Thomas, silverfoxcruiser, bobcat41702, Doctor Jazz, bl00dkr0w, WednesdaysChilde, alypsee1, aransdell, outis2, coyote66, johnr49, NoBlueSkies

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site