Skip to main content

Stand-Your-Ground against non-threats!

One of the most controversial aspects of the stand-your-ground laws (I'm talking to you, Florida...) is the fact it can give one an excuse to kill a person and then claim self-defense. In this type of scenario, the deceased individual is left with no opportunity to tell their side of the story, and with no other witnesses, it becomes the word of the living killer against that of the deceased victim. This is why it appears the shooter is more prone to being punished if his or her targets survived the shots than if one of them was killed. Michael Dunn is the most recent example of this. He shot three African-American teenagers in their car at a gas station and wound up killing one of them. While he's been found guilty with attempted murder of the two kids whom survived, it couldn't be determined one way or the other whether or not he killed the one kid in an act of self-defense.

Not to make light of the Michael Dunn tragedy or others like it, but to depict just how ridiculous the law is, here are a few made-up scenarios which could hypothetically take place due to it:

Scenario #1

Michael Gunn: ::over the phone:: "Hey, buddy. I know it's getting kind of late and all, but I was wondering if you wanted to come over to watch the game. Alright - cool. I'll see you then."

::his friend rings the doorbell::

Gunn: ::opens the door:: "This is for staring at my ex-girlfriend's cleavage when she went to that party dressed as a topless waitress on Halloween last year!" ::shoots and kills him::

Story he tells the cops: "It was late. He came over and was coming right at me, and I didn't know what else to do, so I had to kill him. It was self-defense."


Scenario #2

Jehovah's Witness: ::rings doorbell:: "Well, hello there. If you have a moment, I'd like to talk to you today about Jehovah. Hi, I'm... ::reaches hand out to shake::"

George Gunnerman: ::shoots and kills him::

Story he tells the cops: "The guy just stuck his hand out. I thought he had a gun and was going to shoot me, so I had to defend myself. I mean, why else would he have stuck his hand out like that - you know?"


Scenario #3

Girl Scout: ::rings doorbell: "Hello, sir. I'm Little Annie. You ordered some cookies from me a while ago, so here they are."

Johnny Maniac: "Hey - what's in the box? Whatcha got?"

Girl Scout: "I just told you, sir. Remember ordering these? Here you are..."

Maniac: "I'm not opening that! Is that a bomb? Are you trying to kill me? Who are you? Who do you work for?"

Girl Scout: "Here are your cookies."

Maniac: "I'm not going to let you kill me! Never!!!" ::shoots and kills her::

Story he tells the cops: "How could I have known there were cookies in the box? Have you ever seen the movie Seven? I felt like Brad Pitt in that one scene at the end. I just wanted to know what was in the box. I felt threatened and acted accordingly. It's what Jesus would have done."


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"