Edward Druzolowski, 78, is facing a second-degree murder charge in Florida after gunning down his neighbor over a tree cutting dispute. Brian Ford, 42, was on Druzolowski’s property trimming limbs from a tree between their property when Druzolowski told him to leave. What unfolded led not only to murder charges, but may lead to a controversial defense.
According to the Volusia County Sheriff’s Office, Druzolowski said that he was watching football on Sunday night when his wife told him that Ford was on their property cutting branches. He said that he was afraid of Ford because he would talk about his doing time in prison and fighting other inmates. He told the police that he brought the gun for protection, even though they had never had problems in the past.
Druzolowski said that he told Ford to get off his property and that Ford cursed him and told him to mind his own business. Druzolowski then pulled his gun and pointed it at Ford. He said that Ford was undeterred and said “‘You are pointing a gun at me, are you going to shoot me?’”
Druzolowski said Ford was approaching him as he told him to stop. He also said that he kept the first two chambers empty for safety. He said that he pulled the trigger on the first empty chamber, but Ford continued to advance. He then pulled the trigger again and it went off. Druzolowski insisted that he thought the second chamber was also empty.
Ford was shot in front of his young son.
The most helpful evidence for Druzolowski may have come from the child who told police that his father told Druzolowski, “I’ll cut your head off with the chain saw.” However, he said that the chain saw was not on or running at the time.
We have previously discussed Castle Doctrine laws or “make my day” laws, including other cases involving garage shootings or shootings off the property of the homeowner. This includes the Montana case of Brice Harper, 24, who gunned down Dan Fredenberg, 40, in his garage. Fredenberg, 40, was coming over to confront Harper about having an affair with his wife, Heather Fredenberg. Harper cut the encounter short by shooting him dead and a prosecutor declared that the shooting cannot be prosecuted given the state’s Castle Doctrine or “Make My Day” law.
The common law has long offered ample protections even for reasonable mistakes. These laws are based on an urban legend that people are routinely prosecuted for defending their homes from intruders. The laws have produced perverse results as in the controversial case of Tom Horn in Texas. Yet, the popularity of these laws have spawned “Make My Day Better” laws that extend the privilege of lethal force to businesses and cars.
Florida is a Castle Doctrine state as well as a Stand Your Ground state. That could factor heavily into the criminal investigation. The SYG law was widely debated with the George Zimmerman murder case.
The shooting in this case occurred outside of the house. It is likely also outside of the “curtilage” of the home, where the protection of the domicile can extend. However, Druzolowski is saying that Ford had the chain saw and was threatening him. A position partially supported by his son.
There is an allowance in torts for mistaken self-defense. In the case of Courvoisier v. Raymond, 23 Colo. 113 (1896), a man chased a group out of his home only to fire when a man approached him outside his home from the stone-throwing mob. It turned out to be a deputy sheriff but the court found that Courvoisier could rely on reasonable mistaken self-defense. The common law has long offered ample protections even for reasonable mistakes.
Of course, the difference is that, in Courvoisier, the victim was in fact armed and that was a violent confrontation occurring at the scene.
Juries often resolve doubts in favor of the shooter. It is often perplexing to some of us. For example, there was the notorious case involving the shooting of a Japanese student in Baton Rouge. The 16-year-old Japanese exchange student, Yoshihiro Hattori, was looking for a Halloween party and scared the wife of Rodney Peairs when he spoke a strange language and approached the house. Peairs shot him in the chest with a .44 Magnum handgun and was later cleared under a Make My Day law as mistaken defense of his home and self. We also saw a tragic such case involving the killing of a law student.
There was an equally baffling acquittal of a lawyer who shot an elderly farmer armed only with half of a broomstick used to guide his bull.
This could come down to whether Ford was holding the chain saw at the time, though Druzolowski’sadvanced age could factor into whether he “reasonably” believe that he was being threatened with “great bodily harm.”
Here is the relevant provision in the Stand Your Ground law:
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.
It depends on the DA and if the DA is a SOROS DA. Look what happened in STL when the pair of lawyers who stood on THEOR OWN PORCH with guns as they were having “protesters” come on to THEIR PROPERTY and even break through a gate to do so. The radical DA charged the homeowners/lawyers with brandishing a weapon even though they never used them. The mob was threatening to them and it was during the radicalized end of 2020 when BLM and ANTIFA were burning down cities.
The lawyer couple went through he** just to stay out of prison for just defending their property. When the “protesters” saw their guns they left the property…exactly what you would want your guns to achieve.
PS. In FL DeSantis fired two SOROS DAs and I wish other governors would do the same. Of course it won’t happen when the Democrat governor agrees with the radical DA.
“The SYG law was widely debated with the George Zimmerman murder case.“
It may have been “debated” then, but only because the media was invested in misleading the public to advance their political goals. In fact the Zimmerman case was settled on standard self-defense protections.
It wasn’t a debate – it was a Marxist Media led discussion that was prepared and pimped by both themselves and Barack Obama, who rushed to proclaim that the White Mexican killed a kid that looked like the son he never had. The result of that, including the media selecting pictures of Martin when he was much younger should have embarrassed rational Americans.
Some states” Castle Doctrine laws change the burden of proof or create presumptions which benefit the property owner. For example in my state, if a person unlawfully and forcibly enters a dwelling, it is presumed that the person intended death or great bodily injury to the people lawfully in the home. On the civil side, the homeowner used to have to prove that the invader intended to cause dearth or great bodily injury against the occupants before he could use deadly force. Now it is up to the victim to prove that he did not have that intent.
he presumption that a burglar intends to use deadly force if confronted goes back to the Bible, and as far as I know it is in the common law and applies in all states. What the castle doctrine does is allow the homeowner to defend himself even if he could escape in perfect safety, and even if he would have that duty anywhere else.
Kind of total over escalation by both individuals. Next door neighbors and no one thinks to walk over to the other’’s house and say “I would like to trim the tree limbs that are reaching out over my property”. ‘If you will come with me, maybe we can discuss and agree what I should and should not trim”. “I’m willing to do the work if you agree”. It’s called communication. Walking out of the house with a gun in your hand when another person is trimming branches is escalation and implies you are not there to negotiate or discuss. It’s provocation which is immediately obvious. Trimming branches may be maddening but it is not life threatening.(unless you chose to stand under the branch your are cutting.)
A simple call to the sheriff would have sufficed to ask the tree trimmer to back off, especially if simple discussion failed. I’m 75, have plenty of rifles and handguns, live in a very conservative state and can think of no occasion when I would walk out to a talk to a tree trimmer with a loaded handgun in my possession. I also have several chainsaws which I and my son have used on many occasions (we cleared the land for my house years ago of trees with chainsaws).. I would never have walked out and cut down a neighbors tree branches without first consulting him, irrespective if they overhung my property.
It’s simple courtesy and appropriate behavior which both of these gentleman seemed to have forgotten and now one is dead and the other is charged with murder. Seems they deserved each other.
Pointing “empty firearms at people tends to be quite deadly”. Pointing a handgun and pulling a trigger and not expecting it to fire!!. These 2 were also stupid.
I don’t disagree with you opinion on how both (apparently) handled it. However, the law does not support your belief of what provocation and escalation is i.e. where it is legal for you to carry a firearm on your property (many places including here in Montana), it isn’t “provocation” nor “escalation” to approach a trespasser on your property while armed.
Trespassing is not excused because you were trimming branches, taking a picture of a bird in a tree, etc. and you are a neighbor (and not all neighbor relationships are friendly ones; Rand Paul’s neighbor nearly killed him, if you remember).
You are either on private property without permission or legal excuse, or you are not. The property owner does not have a legal duty to call the police instead of going out to tell the trespasser to leave. (Sidebar: there are more than a few places where distances and scarcity of officers means that police will not attend in anything resembling reasonable time, even if it were a burglary in progress).
And if you then choose to approach an armed person who has told you to stop trespassing and get off their property, that legally armed person does NOT have a duty to allow you to get within reach to disarm you. No different than a trained police officer arresting somebody they have at gunpoint has a duty to allow that person to approach them so they can fight over possession of the firearm. There’s a special level of stupidity or arrogance or contempt in approaching a distressed person whose property you are trespassing on, who has told you to leave. You are literally betting your life to compound your criminal act of trespass. Perhaps thoughtlessly, but in this case, he lost that bet.
A lot of context and nuance is missing so far: what was the past history between the two, was the person who was shot indeed a con, what the community knew about him, did he regularly get in brawls, etc. Ditto for the elderly man who shot him.
If this was here in Montana, where we live and meth cooks on our rural roads here are no longer a rarity, I would call 911 – and ask them how long before they arrived and that I was legally armed. If the answer wasn’t “they’ll be right there”, I would go out there armed – but it wouldn’t be a handgun and the chamber wouldn’t be empty. After 30 years in the military and deployments to the two way rifle range, I don’t want to shoot any more people and especially not on my personal property, knowing that there would be the inevitable investigation, news stories, etc. I’d do what is reasonable to avoid that. At the same time, I will not become part of the national subjugation to lawlessness that is becoming the national trend that criminals are increasing their criminality because of.
Because I have too much time on my hands today, I looked up the property in question. Not knowing the exact location and distances of the incident, if the GIS is correct, the deceased might very well have been on his own property. Advancing on an armed individual is Darwin Award level. So is loading a six-shot wheel gun with 4 rounds.
The dead guy just couldn’t see the forest for the tree
However, he said that the chain saw was not on or running at the time.
Irrelevant; how long does it take to switch a chain saw on? If it were a loaded gun would you say the guy can’t defend himself because it isn’t actually firing at the moment?!
These laws are based on an urban legend that people are routinely prosecuted for defending their homes from intruders.
It’s not a legend. It was happening. In Florida it was happening even after the laws were passed, until the legislature passed new laws reinforcing the old ones. Urban DAs are hostile to self-defense, and will take every opportunity to prosecute someone.
Florida is a Castle Doctrine state as well as a Stand Your Ground state.
That makes no sense. SYG makes the castle doctrine redundant. All the castle doctrine means is that there is no duty to retreat inside your own home. SYG means there is no duty to retreat, ever. That obviously includes your own home, so there’s nothing left for the castle doctrine to do. In Florida, as in the vast majority of states, if you are legitimately under attack you may defend yourself without worrying that some prosecutor will claim you could have safely retreated. That’s all. Neither doctrine makes any other change to the standard laws of self defense.
In this case both are irrelevant, since the possibility of a safe retreat isn’t at issue. The only question is whether he was in reasonable fear for his safety, and SYG doesn’t change that analysis in any way.
The shooting in this case occurred outside of the house. It is likely also outside of the “curtilage” of the home
Irrelevant, because Stand Your Ground.
There is an allowance in torts for mistaken self-defense. […] The common law has long offered ample protections even for reasonable mistakes.
True, but where’s the mistake?
Of course, the difference is that, in Courvoisier, the victim was in fact armed and that was a violent confrontation occurring at the scene.
And the same is true in this case.
Juries often resolve doubts in favor of the shooter. It is often perplexing to some of us.
I don’t see why. It seems obvious to most of us.
Peairs shot him in the chest with a .44 Magnum handgun and was later cleared under a Make My Day law as mistaken defense of his home and self.
It wasn’t mistaken. He had every reason to be afraid of the intruder. The fact that the intruder wasn’t in fact intent on harming him isn’t relevant. If you don’t want to be shot, don’t act in a way that a reasonable person would perceive as threatening.
After viewing Merrick Garlands Congressional testimony yesterday,
I wonder how the DOJ would ‘handle’ this if it were Hunter Biden that did the Shooting in this scenario.
I’m a gun owner and I believe in the castle doctrine. I also believe in common sense and thinking your way through problems. Mr. Ford should be alive. I believe that Mr. Ford should have approached Mr.Druzolowski and told him what he’d like to do. I am older now, but I have always tried not to overreact. Using a weapon is absolutely the last course of action. I feel both of these men made bad choices and certainly threw simple negotiating out the window. This terrible situation could have been avoided.
I believe that Mr. Ford should have approached Mr.Druzolowski and told him what he’d like to do.
I had a similar situation happen to me without guns or dead neighbors. My neighbor had a large oak tree on her property with a long thick tree branch that hung over our shared fence line, my swimming pool and house roof. The branch dropped leaves into my pool regularly, but it was hurricane seasons that concerned me the most being Miami. I asked politely multiple times for her to remove the offending limb but she was a needy, divorced mother who struggled daily with life. Finally I called a tree surgeon to remove the branch portion that crossed the fence line, being careful to leave the branch portion on her side of the fence line alone. She called the police, and we went to court. At the last minute she pulled out of the court case, apologized, allowed me to cut the branch on my side of the fence line, at my expense. The following year Miami was hit twice by hurricanes (Katrina and Wilma) and I was the only homeowner on our street with a generator. On both occasions we were without electricity for 3 weeks. Yup, I stored her refrigerated food in my house, at my request. After the cleanup, she offered to reimburse me for the tree surgeon. I told her to keep the money. We became best of friends
Priorities. Self-control. Big picture. Ford and Druzolowski had neither.
With God removed by Americans from the public square, and more importantly, from our hearts, in the name of “I know better!”, the id, the appetites, the pride and fall of man and our nation have followed. Our Founding Fathers constructed a nation on Judeo-Christian code of morals and virtues. Earl Warren’s SCOTUS and successive SCOTUS decisions on religion would have made our nation’s first Chief Justice, John Jay, rent his clothes and denounce the latter 20th Century SCOTUS outright.
Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 12 October 1813
We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, …. there will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man.
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-06-02-0431
George Washington:
Thanksgiving Proclamation, 3 October 1789
By the President of the United States of America. a Proclamation.
Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor…..
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/05-04-02-0091
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
-John Adams
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.
-George Washington
The great pillars of all government and of social life (are) virtue, morality and religion. This is the armor … and this alone, that renders us invincible.
-Patrick Henry
This nation under God
-Abraham Lincoln
versus
“I did it my way!!!”
– Frank Sinatra
Was whipping and chaining fellow children of god immoral then or is it immoral now?
Finally I called a tree surgeon to remove the branch portion that crossed the fence line, being careful to leave the branch portion on her side of the fence line alone
This is common property law. You own the air above and below the ground. reference gas lines and utilities lines. Though easments are oftened forced be emanate domain
Estovir, I agree. Common sense can trump the law if people just simply talk to each other. All it would have required in this case would have been a calm, non confrontational voice and short conversation.
I’m certain the Video on the Wife’s Phone and the Neighbor’s Ring Doorbell Camera from across the Street will define the altercation, and of course will corroborate any Eye-Wittiness (The Wife & Boy) testimony. There was also previous ‘tension’ between the two parties, Neighbors testimony as to its discourse will be evaluated. That aspect could go badly for the defense of the Shooter, as it may portend to a Premeditated Murder charge, In that the Shooter was waiting for the opportunity to ‘Get Even’ with the Deceased.
It goes to show you, what a ‘powder-keg’ the Media & Entertainment medium has created in the minds of our Society.
Guns don’t kill People, People kill People.
I’d say this one is 50/50. There has been a recent trend in America, particularly in blue states, to criminalize self-defense. The charging 61-year-old New York bodega worker Jose Alba with murder was a particularly outrageous example. I’ll be interested to see if the child’s statement gets suppressed (and on what grounds). Thank you, Jonathan, for an excellent article.
Mark and Patricia McCloskey are a great example of the Government abuse of power. This is exactly why SYG laws are passed. Because power in the hands of tyrants, needs to be checked by the people. The Govt needs lheir power trimmed constantly, because abuse always expands.
There is witness testimony that the shooter also pointed the giun at the crying 8-year old telling him to “shut up” and at the deceased wife. The dead man may have been on his own property with his wife indicating the fence they owned was two feet inside the property line. The shooter may not be getting off scot free.
Linda told local NBC affiliate WESH that her grandson was screaming and wanted to lay on top of his father’s body after the shots were fired.
“Ed kept pointing the gun at him. He said, ‘Shut up, kid,’ to him,” the grandmother said.
“And then Ed was pointing the gun at me.
“He was walking towards the fence line, and I backed up, and I was screaming through the yard.”
First responders got two 911 calls shortly after 7pm, including one from the alleged shooter’s wife.
She claimed that Druzolowski only meant to scare Ford with the weapon and didn’t mean to kill him.
The other call was made by Linda, who told an operator: “He’s dead, I know he’s dead. I couldn’t go over there the guy’s still … with a gun.”
She told investigators that her son was cutting trees on the other side of her fence in an effort to keep it from being damaged.
Although the suspect alleged that Brian was encroaching on his property, Linda disputed this claim.
“My fence is two feet inside my yard,” she said.
“So I got another two feet outside my fenced area.”
Druzolowski was taken into custody on Sunday on a second-degree murder charge and booked into the Volusia County Branch Jail.
“after the shots were fired.”
How many shots were fired?
Don’t know if it was more than one.
Yea thats just the type of error in reporting that would make me question everything else in the article.
Property line is completely irrelevant and used as an unethical rationalization when threats of physical violence are voiced, the means to execute the threat is visible, and the one that was launching the threats was advancing on the shooter.
Based on what I know so far, this is pure stand your ground self defense.
You’re saying you don’t even have to be standing on your own ground? This may be the case under the law, I don’t know. It seems the shooter advanced on the man cutting the limbs, what were his rights?
enigmainblackcom wrote, “You’re saying you don’t even have to be standing on your own ground? This may be the case under the law, I don’t know.”
Yes that’s exactly what I’m saying and what the intent of the law. Your ground means whatever ground you’re standing on when you’re physically threatened.
enigmainblackcom wrote, “It seems the shooter advanced on the man cutting the limbs, what were his rights?”
I assume you’re talking about the man cutting the limbs and he has exactly the same rights. In fact, if the limb cutter had pulled out a gun and shot the older guy when the older guy pulled out a gun the limb cutter would have been justified, but that’s not what happened, the limb cutter threatened the life of the shooter with a chainsaw and advanced on the shooter. The limb cutter was a fool and is responsible for his own actions.
Face the facts as they have been presented enigmainblackcom, the limb cutter actively threatened to kill the shooter with the chainsaw, he had the chain saw, and he advanced on the shooter. This isn’t a Darwin moment but really close!
This will be one that likely ends up in civil court where the limb cutters family will sue the shooter for wrongful death, or something along those lines.
Everyone left alive to speak has an ulterior motive in telling their story. If I saw a neighbor on what I thought was my lawn, my first thought wouldn’t be to approach him with a gun.
enigmainblackcom wrote, “Everyone left alive to speak has an ulterior motive in telling their story.”
Thanks for that obvious self-evident statement Einstein. 😉
enigmainblackcom wrote, “If I saw a neighbor on what I thought was my lawn, my first thought wouldn’t be to approach him with a gun.”
Neither would I under most conditions, but to be fair, we were not there and we don’t know all the circumstances in the relationship between the shooter and the victim. Don’t ever ignore the fear of others, it can be a motivating factor to violent action. Also, as far as I can tell, the shooter had every right to have the firearm.
Did you completely miss the part where the shooter said that “he was afraid of Ford because he would talk about his doing time in prison and fighting other inmates.” and that “he brought the gun for protection”? The victim comes across as a bully that’s willing to carry through with his threats and the shooter comes across as a homeowner that’s scared sh!tless of his neighbor, this is not a good combination and very likely was pre-primed for explosive violence.
I’m guessing that there were other words slung at each other maybe in the past and in this confrontation that we may never hear about, but none of that overrides the fact (as presented) that there was a confirmed death threat from the victim towards the shooter, the victim had means at hand to carry it out that death threat and the victim advanced on the shooter knowing full well that he had a firearm. Every firearm in every situation should be considered loaded. The stupidity the victim exhibited is not fixable especially after he’s dead.
I have instructed others in firearm usage both in the Army and in the civilian world and I have absolutely no tolerance for nonlegal uses of firearms. One of the basic civilian rules I have taught is that you don’t pull out a firearm until you’re ready to shoot it immediately, I don’t like brandishing firearms to try to scare people into submission.
In my opinion; both the shooter and the victim did things that escalated the situation, but the victim was a moron when he threaten the life of the shooter and then advance on the shooter knowing that he had a firearm. This is classic “I’m afraid for my life” stand your ground self defense.
Agree or disagree, it’s your choice.
MORAL OF THE STORY
Don’t f***ing threaten people, especially an armed elderly person, because you take the real world chance of being shot dead on the spot.
Everyone should take threats seriously.
Based on what I’ve read so far; Druzolowski will very likely be acquitted of any charges.
𝐌𝐎𝐑𝐀𝐋 𝐎𝐅 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐒𝐓𝐎𝐑𝐘
Every Police Officer knows; You:
Don’t bring a Chainsaw to a Gun Fight,
Don’t bring a Knife to a Gun Fight,
Don’t bring your Wife/Kid to a Gun Fight,
I appreciate the Prof’s, citing of past cases and their outcome. I hesitate to equate the outcomes with the law used in defense of the shooter. My impression, the creation of the laws SYG, Castle, etc, is the people answering the Judicial overreach of judges declaring in the past there was no valid reason for a person protecting their family and home. I see some of these rulings, simply allowing the juries to determine the motivation of all involved and delivering justice.
In this Nations early years, Private Property was held inviolate. There was little defense of a person knowingly trespassing, and doing so, the person trespassing, was risking their life. Judges ruling over jury trials slowly stripped people of their power to protect their families and property. The laws created by the people are in answer to a judiciary playing God, and deciding cases to fit their personal sensibilities.
You may not like…I dont like it all the time. But the power of the jury is absolute.
Members of Congress and state legislators sometimes don’t factor in “Exception versus the Rule” in lawmaking. There is a huge benefit to having a healthy risk of legal penalty in any law. From preemption laws to Stand Your Ground laws.
In other words, there is no need whatsoever for any SYG law or any castle doctrine law. If a homeowner is in genuine fear for his family’s life, those homeowner will defend themselves and can justify their actions in front of a judge or jury.
By creating these SYG laws to cover the rare exception, it has created the opposite result – terrible abuses of these laws incentivizing shooting people when there is no real threat to one’s family. A homeowner should fear criminal prosecution if it’s not a legitimate threat or other avenues are available (ie: calling the local police, lawsuits, etc).
A homeowner should fear criminal prosecution if it’s not a legitimate threat or other avenues are available (ie: calling the local police, lawsuits, etc).
You have the burden backwards. The burden always must rest with the government. Our justice system always assumes the people are innocent and the Government need overwhelming evidence to get a conviction.
The SYG, and Castle defenses, are just that a defense….that the GOVERNMENT must first allow the defendant access to use.
Some cases will go sideways. But not near as many as the Governments abuse of power is responsible for.
There is a huge benefit to having a healthy risk of legal penalty in any law.
Backwards….you always get the power dynamic backwards. There is a huge benefit to people understanding individual rights. Not trespassing with a weapon in hand is one of those things people should understand, risks their own life.
You’re wrong. All SYG or the castle doctrine do is remove one element of self-defense: that it was impossible to retreat in perfect safety. In most cases it is impossible anyway, so that element is automatically fulfilled, but experience showed that Monday-morning-quarterback prosecutors would routinely claim that there was some way the victim could have escaped, and would try to convince a jury that it would have been perfectly safe for him to have done so. So legislatures in the vast majority of states abolished that element. In a SYG state, which is 38 out of 50 last I heard, it doesn’t matter if you could have escaped, because you don’t have to. In a castle doctrine state that is also true, but only in your home.
You are blind to the unseen. (Bastiat)
Ah! The Soviet Democrat Apparatchik, Anonymous, arrives on scene to explain the Soviet Democrat’s police state fascism view of personal rights, in this case the SYG protection for the exercise of Second Amendment rights: “If a law might result in an outcome we believe should not happen, then it is a terrible law. Because even one bad outcome is an abuse and incentivizes people to commit abuses”.
“YOU DON’T NEED STAND YOUR GROUND LAWS! TAKE YOUR MEDICINE: MORTGAGE YOUR HOME TO HIRE A LAWYER, AND TRUST YOUR FATE TO THE JUDGES AND JURIES WHO WILL GIVE YOU MERRICK GARLAND/JACK SMITH JUSTICE”
Says it all that the Soviet Democrats police state fascist apparatchiks like Anonymous never argue the opposite: defunding the police, refusing to charge criminals, no cash bail,etc leads to terrible abuses and incentivizes criminals to commit more violent crimes. Once again: two completely opposite justice systems – one for them and their identity politics groups, and a completely different justice of system for those who are their prey.
don’t walk toward someone with a gun. don’t point a gun at someone.
I suspect that there’s far more to this than has yet been reported.
If it is absurd to say that one can provoke a dog and then shot the dog citing self defense, it seems to me equally absurd to think that one can provoke a person by pointing the gun and that person and then shoot.
Mark, exactly who was the provoker?
“one can provoke a person by pointing the gun and that person “
I have had a gun pointed at me in anger. The only thing it “provoked” was me to wet my pants and seek to stabilize the situation. Walking toward someone with a gun pointed at you is darwin at work.
It is absurd to believe that it is provocative for a property owner to approach somebody criminally trespassing while legally armed for their defense in that state (meaning, most of them). In essence, it’s a proclamation that nullifies the right to bear arms for defense as well as the right to defend your property from criminal actions. Also known as the “Just trust the police to protect you and your property” theory.
It is even more absurd to proclaim that a police officer or private citizen pointing a firearm at a person engaged in a criminal act is actually an act of provoking the criminal.
Emotion rather than rational thought is fueling many of these comments. Starting with the strawman scenario that a dog is no different than a human being in it’s thought processes AND must have been committing some sort of mens rea criminal act like criminal trespass.
There is no defense for what was apparently criminal trespass here. And especially none that provides a right to both refuse to leave and a right to then move towards the property owner holding you at gunpoint.
Is there a law somewhere that says “If the criminal you are telling to stop committing the criminal act against you/your property starts moving towards you, you must not shoot but instead fight them for possession of the gun”? Are trained police required to do the same?
This is a tragedy facilitated by the attitude of too many people that they are always obligated to defend their property by violence if necessary.
As a part time resident of Volusia County, and gun owner, this saddens me. The Sheriff’s Office responds in a timely manner to potential violence.
The homeowner should have called the cops before going to investigate the neighbor on his property.
He may still be on legal firm grounds but this most likely could have been avoided.
but this most likely could have been avoided.
Avoided by the dead man following the law.
Looks like the ol’ “If it saves one life it is worth it!” gun banner argument. How many is “too many”? Do you have an actual number? 10% of instances of defending property? 5%?
I doubt many will celebrate the outcome, but coulda’, woulda’, shoulda’ are not elements of criminal law, nor is a segment of the population saying “I wouldn’t have handled that it that way, even though I know nothing of what the neighbor was like or their previous relationship”.
I’m reasonably certain I wouldn’t have dealt with it the way this person did, even if I only called police before going outside. But I’m not going to make emotional declarations on the American public and what too many of them do/don’t do purely based on my emotional reactions.
Two of the kind of braindead who are fodder for Second Amendment opponents, here in Florida in particular. Trust they are NOT the only examples of their ilk out there.
Out on a limb