In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Options
No retreat, no surrender
Mr. Friendly
Member Posts: 7,981
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/30/florida.shooting.law/index.html
How can they charge this man with her death? How do they know it wasn't her idea to steal the truck? HER actions caused her death when she WILLINGLY got into the truck they were stealing imho
MIAMI, Florida (CNN) -- Authorities do not plan to file charges against a Florida orange grove owner who fatally shot a 21-year-old woman, saying he is protected under the state's controversial "no retreat" law.
Bullet holes pocked the windshield of the crashed SUV, and blood stained he passenger seat.
1 of 3 But the woman's boyfriend faces second-degree murder charges in her death, because the woman was shot to death during an alleged felony -- the theft of an SUV.
Tony Curtis Phillips, 29, didn't fire a single shot. He didn't even know his girlfriend, Nikki McCormick, was dead until police showed him an online news story.
Police said McCormick accompanied Phillips as he attempted to steal the SUV from a barn in an orange grove near Wahneta, Florida, before daylight Tuesday.
Grove owner Ladon "Jamie" Jones opened fire as the SUV approached him, according to an affidavit released by the Polk County Sheriff's Office. Phillips fled; McCormick was shot in the head and later died.
Authorities said Jones is protected by Florida's "no retreat" law, which gives him the right to use lethal force if he reasonably believes his life is in danger. Phillips, however, faces charges because police allege he was committing felony grand theft auto at the time of McCormick's death.
"Because his conduct caused her death, he gets charged with a felony," Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd said.
Phillips was arrested late Tuesday in Polk County, near Lakeland, after a day on the run. Police said he didn't believe McCormick was dead at first, telling officers, "Of all the times you've questioned me, this is a nasty trick you're playing on me this time." He agreed to cooperate if detectives could prove she was dead.
Judd said detectives called up the shooting story on the local newspaper's Web site and "let him read it online, and that's when he broke down and cried, and gave us a confession," Judd said.
According to the affidavit, Jones heard his Toyota Land Cruiser, parked in the barn at his orange grove, start up before daylight Tuesday. Jones told police he grabbed his gun, a 9mm that he keeps with him while working at the grove. He said he could see two people in the SUV as it backed out of the barn, according to the affidavit. He said he saw the passenger's arm reach outside the vehicle, and believed that person might be holding a gun.
The Land Cruiser stopped directly in front of him, Jones said in the affidavit. He said he raised his gun and pointed it at the occupants, shouting "Stop," but the vehicle appeared to be moving directly toward him.
"Fearing for his life, he then fired what he thought to be six to eight rounds into the front windshield of the vehicle," the affidavit stated.
The vehicle backed up at high speed, crashed through a fence and ended up in a ditch. Jones told police a man jumped out of the SUV and ran away.
Sheriff's deputies found McCormick inside the vehicle with a bullet wound to her head. She was taken to Lakeland Regional Medical Center, where she died.
Jones did not return a call from CNN seeking comment.
Authorities will forward their information to prosecutors, Judd said, but are "not going to file any charges [against Jones] at this point, because we don't see any reason to arrest Mr. Jones," Judd said. "... It appears, at this point in the investigation, Mr. Jones was completely, legally justified in his actions."
A Polk County judge on Thursday ordered Phillips held without bond. A public defender was appointed to his case.
Polk County Public Defender J. Marion Moorman declined to comment on the charges to CNN. "We will, of course, be interviewing the client very soon, and will be undertaking his defense from there," he said.
Phillips told police he assumed McCormick had also gotten out of the vehicle and run away, according to the affidavit. He said he was sorry for what happened "and said he knew he was partially responsible for her death," the affidavit said.
Polk County State Attorney's Office spokesman Chip Thulberry said his office will review the case when the sheriff's investigation is completed.
The Brady Campaign to prevent Gun Violence says Florida is one of 16 states that have enacted "no retreat" laws, which some call "shoot-first" laws. The laws extend the right to use deadly force beyond a person's home and into public places.
"The shoot-first law is not needed," said Brian Malte of the Brady Campaign. "This person, regardless of the situation, may have done the right thing, but he cannot be prosecuted for doing something wrong if he hit an innocent bystander," he said.
Other groups stand by the "no retreat" laws.
"At the moment a crime occurs, victims don't have the luxury of time," said Andrew Arulanandam of the National Rifle Association. "They have seconds to decide on a course of action to protect their lives and their families. This law provides law-abiding people with options."
How can they charge this man with her death? How do they know it wasn't her idea to steal the truck? HER actions caused her death when she WILLINGLY got into the truck they were stealing imho
MIAMI, Florida (CNN) -- Authorities do not plan to file charges against a Florida orange grove owner who fatally shot a 21-year-old woman, saying he is protected under the state's controversial "no retreat" law.
Bullet holes pocked the windshield of the crashed SUV, and blood stained he passenger seat.
1 of 3 But the woman's boyfriend faces second-degree murder charges in her death, because the woman was shot to death during an alleged felony -- the theft of an SUV.
Tony Curtis Phillips, 29, didn't fire a single shot. He didn't even know his girlfriend, Nikki McCormick, was dead until police showed him an online news story.
Police said McCormick accompanied Phillips as he attempted to steal the SUV from a barn in an orange grove near Wahneta, Florida, before daylight Tuesday.
Grove owner Ladon "Jamie" Jones opened fire as the SUV approached him, according to an affidavit released by the Polk County Sheriff's Office. Phillips fled; McCormick was shot in the head and later died.
Authorities said Jones is protected by Florida's "no retreat" law, which gives him the right to use lethal force if he reasonably believes his life is in danger. Phillips, however, faces charges because police allege he was committing felony grand theft auto at the time of McCormick's death.
"Because his conduct caused her death, he gets charged with a felony," Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd said.
Phillips was arrested late Tuesday in Polk County, near Lakeland, after a day on the run. Police said he didn't believe McCormick was dead at first, telling officers, "Of all the times you've questioned me, this is a nasty trick you're playing on me this time." He agreed to cooperate if detectives could prove she was dead.
Judd said detectives called up the shooting story on the local newspaper's Web site and "let him read it online, and that's when he broke down and cried, and gave us a confession," Judd said.
According to the affidavit, Jones heard his Toyota Land Cruiser, parked in the barn at his orange grove, start up before daylight Tuesday. Jones told police he grabbed his gun, a 9mm that he keeps with him while working at the grove. He said he could see two people in the SUV as it backed out of the barn, according to the affidavit. He said he saw the passenger's arm reach outside the vehicle, and believed that person might be holding a gun.
The Land Cruiser stopped directly in front of him, Jones said in the affidavit. He said he raised his gun and pointed it at the occupants, shouting "Stop," but the vehicle appeared to be moving directly toward him.
"Fearing for his life, he then fired what he thought to be six to eight rounds into the front windshield of the vehicle," the affidavit stated.
The vehicle backed up at high speed, crashed through a fence and ended up in a ditch. Jones told police a man jumped out of the SUV and ran away.
Sheriff's deputies found McCormick inside the vehicle with a bullet wound to her head. She was taken to Lakeland Regional Medical Center, where she died.
Jones did not return a call from CNN seeking comment.
Authorities will forward their information to prosecutors, Judd said, but are "not going to file any charges [against Jones] at this point, because we don't see any reason to arrest Mr. Jones," Judd said. "... It appears, at this point in the investigation, Mr. Jones was completely, legally justified in his actions."
A Polk County judge on Thursday ordered Phillips held without bond. A public defender was appointed to his case.
Polk County Public Defender J. Marion Moorman declined to comment on the charges to CNN. "We will, of course, be interviewing the client very soon, and will be undertaking his defense from there," he said.
Phillips told police he assumed McCormick had also gotten out of the vehicle and run away, according to the affidavit. He said he was sorry for what happened "and said he knew he was partially responsible for her death," the affidavit said.
Polk County State Attorney's Office spokesman Chip Thulberry said his office will review the case when the sheriff's investigation is completed.
The Brady Campaign to prevent Gun Violence says Florida is one of 16 states that have enacted "no retreat" laws, which some call "shoot-first" laws. The laws extend the right to use deadly force beyond a person's home and into public places.
"The shoot-first law is not needed," said Brian Malte of the Brady Campaign. "This person, regardless of the situation, may have done the right thing, but he cannot be prosecuted for doing something wrong if he hit an innocent bystander," he said.
Other groups stand by the "no retreat" laws.
"At the moment a crime occurs, victims don't have the luxury of time," said Andrew Arulanandam of the National Rifle Association. "They have seconds to decide on a course of action to protect their lives and their families. This law provides law-abiding people with options."
Comments
assuredly we shall all hang
separately."
-Ben Franklin, at the
signing of the Declaration
of Independence
To All,
Ben Franklin sure was a prescient old bird:
No Retreat, No Surrender:
Imagine for a moment what would have happened in the United States if, instead of active political involvement, firearms rights activists were to have retreated to the haven of Second Amendment legalism.
Instead of surviving the regulatory Stalingrad of the Clinton Years, firearms manufacturers would be shuttered, gunowners would have seen their most prized personal possessions consigned to the smelter and the scrap heap, and the Second Amendment would have been consigned to some darkened vault in the basement of the Smithsonian.
Fortunately, dedicated individuals took it into their own hands to not only preserve their rights and traditions, but engaged in a political and educational offensive on the "enemy's" home turf. The domestic threat to the Second Amendment was countered by a most active engagement on a broad front across the American political battlefield. The result was that from the various and sundry state legislatures, to the hallowed halls of Congress and, yes, even the White House itself, a message supporting the individual right to keep and bear arms was made loud and clear.
Not surprisingly, one theater of this political war remained an active threat, a haven for those whose interest lies in seeing a rejuvenated Brady Bunch or a well-endowed VPC. It should not surprise anyone that the elites from a host of foreign countries, especially those who do not prize individual rights so much as their own ability to dictate outcomes, are still engaged offensively. They remain, even to this day, interested in establishing a global political apparatus that would prefer to eventually make civilian firearms ownership untenable.
So, like President Bush in the War on Terrorism, firearms activists are faced with the same decision, as to either take the battle to the enemy's terrain, or to stand passively by and concede the benefits of maneuver, concentration of force, and timing to those who oppose that most fundamental of individual rights.
Fortunately, in recent years, a number of "confreres" were formed and were able to be effective allies to the NRA's global efforts. Groups like the World Forum on the Future of Sport Shooting Activities were able to assist at halting the supposedly invincible advance of those in the UN and NGO community who advocated a firearms confiscation agenda that included such "estimable" ideas as heavy taxation, restriction of calibers, and even rationing (Sort of makes you wonder if the "furriners" and the Brady Bunch have been having long chats together). The combined victory at the various UN Small Arms conferences may seem slim or even "pyrrhic" to the uninitiated. But then, so did the Battle of the Coral Sea seem to some of an earlier generation.
Yet despite this, those like David Codrea, in an article in the September 2003 issue of "Guns and Ammo", would continue to council disengagement, retreat from the global battlefield, and a kind of pseudo-isolationism that fails to recognize that there are no protective oceans to hide behind in a world-wide battle of ideas. It is apparently more important for Codrea and his ilk to maintain an ideological purity of thought, rather than achieve any of the incremental positional successes that could best guarantee eventual victory. What is more, it is hard to imagine how an almost Islamist-like exclusionary world-view will enable the Codreas of the world to convert more than the occasional wandering "Aryan" to the paradise of a rapidly diminishing gunowner "reservation".
Fortunately others, including the NRA leadership, council that it is a better strategy to take the fight to the enemy on their own ground, with as many allies as can be found, and by using the "weapons" appropriate for each and every venue. For it is only by active engagement, education, and persuasion of each and every foreigner available to the merits of the armed, law-abiding citizen can there be any hope at all of a future with a meaningful Second Amendment. In essence, the firearms owner's best defense is what amounts to an eventual, though gradual, globalization of a constitutionally guaranteed right of the individual to keep and bear firearms.
Of course, in this case, the applicable venues include the conference hall, the court of public opinion, and even the U.N. General Assembly Floor. Rather than mortars and machine guns, the choice of weapons are the lawyer-lobbyist (armed with a phone tree list that could sink the QE II) and as many fraternal NGO's as can be had. For it is only by lobbying foreign politicians and the citizens of a majority of foreign lands that a case for the individual right to keep and bear arms can have any global success.
And it is only by having an eventual global success that Americans can help preserve the right to keep and bear arms here in the United States. Victory will deny the gun-control fedayeen the political, logistical, and financial support they will need to reinvigorate themselves and wage their low intensity conflict here in the U.S.
Victory will also mean a broader consensus on the real meaning of individual rights, enough so that even our domestic judiciary will not be tempted by the siren songs coming from the elite salons of European socialism.
Thus it is left to the firearms activist to compare and contrast the two world visions, that of the Codreas of the world versus that of one of the pre-eminent civil rights organizations in the country. One countenances retreat from the world stage and a shunning of civilized (though seemingly interminable) dialogue. The other advocates active engagement with, and the eventual defeat of, those in opposition the most basic means of self-determination and self-defense. If this were war, the choice could never be clearer.
But then again, it is politics-as-war, after all.
Story basis may be found at:
September 2003 Issue, Guns and Ammo,
at news-stands now;
http://www.gunsandammomag.com/in_the_field/world_forum_0519/
http://216.239.37.104/search?q=cache:VKPrk2TcAncJ:www.unidir.ch/
pdf/articles/pdf-art13.pdf+world+forum+on+the+future+of+sport+
shooting+activities&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Hollywood Blacklist?:
In one of the more intriguing stories from this weekend, Linda Deutsch writes about the conviction of actor Tom Sizemore on several counts of domestic violence.
A jury convicted Sizemore of one count of physical abuse (sort of sounds like assault and battery, before Lautenberg changed the legal landscape), along with having made verbal threats. He faces perhaps as much as 4 years in a California prison (Up to 2 years if he eats the creamed corn and keeps the guards happy.).
Sizemore and his attorney did note that the jury acquitted him on additional charges of physical abuse, thus trying to position Sizemore as favorably as possible for an additional trial where he is charged with punching another woman in the face. In the first trial, the victim was none other than Heidi Fleiss, who had been released from jail after having served time for tax evasion.
But Sizemore's wish to ".put this behind me and do what I have always loved doing, making movies." may actually run into some interesting limitations.
After all, he may no longer be eligible to make movies where he is in the presence of firearms. The former star of "Black Hawk Down" and "Saving Private Ryan" now belongs to a prohibited class when it comes to firearms, and thus might find it harder to obtain work in the types of films he has been accustomed to getting.
Now, Hollywood Magic can extend to making props, which are not guns, look like guns. But Sizemore now belongs to a cadre of actors (Robert Downey Jr., possibly even Alec Baldwin) whose personal antics may have put standard action roles out of reach if real firearms are involved for the sake of "realism" or "plot".
Now, the real issue will be to see if Hollywood will fight this latest prohibition on actors' and actresses' ability in "getting work" in the same manner in which they differed on the original "Blacklist" or even the more recent tribulations over the war in Iraq. It would be heartening, to say the least, to see if Susan Sarandon or Martin Sheen will take up the cause of a revision to Senator Lautenberg's handiwork.
Just don't hold your breath.
Story may be found at:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?
f=/news/archive/2003/08/15/state1952EDT0168.DTL
Respectfully,
Anthony Canales
SFVMC-NRA
c 2003 Anthony Canales
All rights reserved
http://www.nramemberscouncils.com/newsbriefs/030817.shtml
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878<P>
Because had he been killed, she would have been charged with the felony.
That is ridiculous collectivist thinking. She got in the car voluntarily (apparently). She is the person who is responsible for her actions, not him. The whole victim mentality continues to baffle me
If someone is an active participant in a crime and was aware (or should have been aware) of potential results, they're treated as if they committed the actions of all participants.
Sort of like if you drive someone up to a bank and wait outside while they rob it at gunpoint. Even though you never got out of the car, if it's proven that you were aware of what the other guy was about to do in there you're just as guilty of bank robbery as if you went in there with him. If he injures or kills someone in there you just bit off just as big a bite as he did.
If anyone's death occurs during the commission or your flight -whether they be a victim, innocent party, cop or codefendant - all suspects share equal responsibility.
The degree of someone's participation may be taken into account during the sentencing phase of a trial, but guilt or innocence is an issue in and of itself.
This is not some new, modern way of doing things. It's possibly been this way in your own state since before you were born.
In many states there's no 'accessory' clause when it comes to crimes.
If someone is an active participant in a crime and was aware (or should have been aware) of potential results, they're treated as if they committed the actions of all participants.
Sort of like if you drive someone up to a bank and wait outside while they rob it at gunpoint. Even though you never got out of the car, if it's proven that you were aware of what the other guy was about to do in there you're just as guilty of bank robbery as if you went in there with him. If he injures or kills someone in there you just bit off just as big a bite as he did.
If anyone's death occurs during the commission or your flight -whether they be a victim, innocent party, cop or codefendant - all suspects share equal responsibility.
The degree of someone's participation may be taken into account during the sentencing phase of a trial, but guilt or innocence is an issue in and of itself.
This is not some new, modern way of doing things. It's possibly been this way in your own state since before you were born.
My point is not what the law is, but rather the ridiculous nature of the thought process that concieved it. It is just another way to point fingers at another and dodge responsibility. What possible positive thing can come from this? There are at least 5 crimes I can think of that he could be charged with that all carry serious prison time. Why would you have a need to lump this onto it?
There are at least 5 crimes I can think of that he could be charged with that all carry serious prison time. Why would you have a need to lump this onto it?Because you always go with the highest possible charge, then by the time the lawyers and courts get through with their dance he just might end up serving a sentence he actually deserves for being such a lowlife, thieving bazzard. [:D]
Good law. Your felony caused a death, you should pay for it.
Sounds to me like the man who got away was a seasoned criminal who dragged his girl into it.
Sucks that she died but the owner of the vehicle could have been run over with his own property on his own land.
quote:Originally posted by Todesengel
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
Because had he been killed, she would have been charged with the felony.
That is ridiculous collectivist thinking. She got in the car voluntarily (apparently). She is the person who is responsible for her actions, not him. The whole victim mentality continues to baffle me
quote:Originally posted by Mercury
Obviously you know very little of how druggies treat their women. She probably DID NOT have a "choice" on what to do. He probably ran her life completely.
quote:Originally posted by Todesengel
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
Because had he been killed, she would have been charged with the felony.
That is ridiculous collectivist thinking. She got in the car voluntarily (apparently). She is the person who is responsible for her actions, not him. The whole victim mentality continues to baffle me