Florida Man Shoots Ex-Girlfriend - Fake Tears - No Charges

A woman was shot Thursday afternoon in Mount Dora, according to the Lake County Sheriff's Office.

Curtis Reeves, The Florida Popcorn Shooter, Gets Out of Jail

Curtis Reeves

Christian Science Monitor

A retired Florida police officer charged with murder in the shooting death of a fellow moviegoer during a dispute over texting was released from jail on bond Friday, his lawyer said.

Bail was set at $150,000 for Curtis Reeves, 71, who has been in jail without bond since the January shooting at a Tampa-area movie theater. A judge ordered Reeves under house arrest, and he is only to leave home to shop for groceries, seek medical care, or attend religious services.

"Mr. Reeves did nothing but use the law of self-defense in order to preserve his own life," his lawyer, Richard Escobar, told reporters. "He's coming home in order to resume his life and to assist us in preparing his defense."

As a condition of his bond, Reeves must surrender any personal firearms.

Woman Stands Her Ground Against Kids with Squirt Guns.

"What are you doing with a real gun! Why are you pointing it at my kids? They are only kids!"

“I didn’t know what to think,” said one neighbor. “It was like a joke to her (George). She laughed about it. I just hope the kids don’t have nightmares from it.”


If the video link doesn't work, it can be seen here.

Billie Jo George, 24, was subsequently arrested and charged with four counts of recklessly endangering another person, discharge of firearms, propulsion of missiles onto roadways and disorderly conduct. She was committed to the Berks County Jail on $75,000 bail.

Here is our responsible gun owner from her facebook page

It get's even better as to her status as "a responsible gun owner".

It seems this is not an isolated incident since a similar shooting happened in NC a few months back.

What was the NRA's position on carrying guns in public in the "good old days"?

Oh yeah.

Funny, but responsible gun owners weren't inconvenienced in the old days.  It also seems to me that they are far more inconvenienced by irresponsible people toting guns.

Florida Now Allows Warning Shots

Testing the Limits of "Stand Your Ground"--can you really get away with murder?

Calling these laws "get away with murder" may not be as inaccurate as the "pro-gun" side might like to admit with lots of murderers and would be murderers finding that if they say they were scared or protecting their home that they might actually be able to pull a George Zimmerman.  Although, it didn't work as well as Michael Dunn had hoped it would in his case: even though he may actually get away with murdering the one person he intended to kill.

It was those stray shots that got him found guilty (attempted murder).

Wonkette addresses this truly US legal phenomenon in the post: OUR COLD DEAD HANDS--These People Trapping And Shooting These Teenagers Are Not Very Nice, No, Not At All

Thankfully, with a lot of states broadening the scope of what counts as “self defense,” several brave Responsible Gun Owners have taken to killing folks for the sake of finding out what kinds of homicide are justified. No applause necessary; these everyday Second Amendment Heroes just see it as their civic duty.

Some people see these wonderful new laws that prove that life is worth less than property and that the concept of "right to life" by not having life arbitrarily taken is something that means they can see if they can indeed "get away with murder".

Wonkette's conclusion:

And so our glorious experiment in ground-standing continues; future cases will no doubt help us gain a better understanding of just when it becomes OK to purposefully set a trap for a human being you want to kill. We bet there will be lots of volunteers from the Responsible Gun Owning community to serve as the armed portion of those experiments, and tough shit for those who get killed, because they never should have been there in the first place.

These laws prove that the US is in no way a "Christian Nation" which believes in the sanctity of life.

Florida Man Shoots Suspected Female Intruder, Self-defense or Homicide?

Latresse Monroe, 26, was shot and killed early Wednesday morning. (Photo credit: Facebook)

Guns dot com

A Florida man shot and killed a suspected female intruder early Wednesday morning, raising questions about whether the fatal shooting was self-defense or homicide.

Joseph McGuire, 64, of Archer, Florida, fatally shot 26-year-old Latreese Monroe on Wednesday around 2 a.m. after Monroe had kicked in the man’s front door, according to an Alachua County Sheriff’s Office report.

Following the shooting, McGuire called 911 to report the incident.

When police arrived on the scene, they discovered Monroe on the ground with a gunshot wound to her torso. She was partially in the home near the busted door, according to the report.

Washington Lawful and Responsible Gun Owner Who Killed an Unarmed Drunk Acted in Self Defense

 Guns dot com

A Pasco, Washington, homeowner who fatally shot a drunken wanderer last month will not face charges because he acted in self-defense, Franklin County prosecutor Shawn Sant announced last Wednesday.

With his 9mm pistol, Rudy Ontiveros Jr. shot Stephan S. Aceves four times in the hand, chest and head while the 28 year old was apparently trying to force his way into the man’s home at 2:30 in the morning on Feb. 14, the prosecutor explained at the press conference.

According to lab tests, Aceves had a blood alcohol content level of .35 percent, more than four times the level in which one would be considered impaired under state law (.08), when he began making his way into Ontiveros’s home.

“This is a tragic incident and a reminder that alcohol is a drug and can have horrific consequences, especially at elevated levels,” Sant said.

A pathetic drunk stumbling around does not pose a lethal threat, but the gun owner claims he thought exactly that. 

The way I see it there are only two possible explanations. One, the home owner is lying about having been in fear for his life and was really so outraged at the audacity of someone entering his home that the home owner executed him on the spot knowing that the permissive castle doctrine defense would get him off.  Or two, he mistook the harmless drunk man for a true threat. 

Either way the shooter was WRONG. 

Texas A&M University: Does Strengthening Self-Defense Law Deter Crime or Escalate Violence? Evidence from Expansions to Castle Doctrine

Link

5. Conclusion

In recent years, more than 20 states have strengthened their self-defense laws by
adopting castle doctrine laws. These statutes widen the scope for the justified use of lethal
force in self-defense by stating the circumstances under which self-defense is justified and
removing the duty to retreat from a list of protected places outside the home. In addition,
in many cases they also establish a presumption of reasonable fear and remove civil
liability. Thus, these laws could hypothetically deter crime or, alternatively, increase
homicide.

 Results presented indicate that expansions to castle doctrine do not deter crime.
Furthermore, our estimates are sufficiently precise as to rule out moderate-sized deterrence
effects. Thus, while our view is that it is a priori reasonable to expect that strengthening
self-defense law would deter crime, we find this is not the case.

More significantly, results indicate that castle doctrine laws increase total
homicides by around 8 percent. Put differently, the laws induce an additional 600
homicides per year across the 21 states in our sample that expanded castle doctrine over
this time period. This finding is robust to a wide set of difference-in-differences
specifications, including region-by-year fixed effects, state-specific linear time trends, and
controls for time-varying factors such as economic conditions, state welfare spending, and
policing and incarceration rates. These findings provide evidence that lowering the
expected cost of lethal force causes there to be more of it.

More on the Latest WalMart Shooting in Phoenix

Shooter: Quadlin, pictured, told police he pulled his gun on Belinte Chee during the fight because he felt he was losing


The Daily Mail

A Phoenix, Arizona father shot dead an unarmed stranger in the middle of a suburban Walmart Sunday, but police have not booked him because they say the shooting was in self-defense. 

Cyle Wayne Quadlin, 25, opened fire at Kriston Charles Belinte Chee, 36, following a fight at a service counter in the mega-retailer at around 4 p.m., according to Chandler police. 

Detectives say the store's surveillance video shows the two men arguing before the shooting Sunday afternoon. Quadlin told police he pulled his gun when he felt Belinte Chee was winning.


Belinte Chee

'Mr. Quadlin was losing the fight and indicated he "was in fear for his life," so he pulled his gun and shot Mr. Belinte Chee,' police spokesman Joe Favazzo said.

Belinte Chee was taken to a hospital where he was pronounced dead, police said. According to his Facebook page, the victim has a wife and young son.

Michael Dunn Goes Down

Racism Inherent in Stand Your Ground

PBS Frontline

Gun Rights Legacy

Two Neanderthal Gun Nuts Lamenting the State of Boys in America

What Kurt Daudt, House Minority Leader, did wrong, and why it illustrates how Stand Your Ground law is bad, and MN concealed carry permit law is inadequate

Repost by Dog Gone from Penigma:

A summary of events, from the Star Tribune last month:

The lead Republican in the Minnesota House of Representatives acknowledged Friday that he was involved in a gun-related dispute in Montana in September that resulted in his arrest and felony charges against a friend who was traveling with him.

According to the charges filed by the Park County district attorney in Montana, House Minority Leader Kurt Daudt, 40, of Crown, along with Daniel Benjamin Weinzetl, 24, of Cambridge, had traveled to Livingston, Mont., on Sept. 7 to buy a vintage Ford Bronco.

Daudt got into an argument with the seller that escalated, the records said. While Daudt and the seller argued, Weinzetl went back and pulled Daudt’s black handgun from the car and allegedly pointed it at the seller’s “entire family, including the children,” according to court records.

Weinzetl was charged with aggravated assault, assault with a weapon and criminal endangerment, all felonies. He posted $50,000 bail two days later and was ordered to stay out of Montana with the exception of future court hearings. He pleaded not guilty to all three counts in October. Daudt, who is not named in the complaint, was not charged.

Previous offenses

According to Minnesota court records, Weinzetl, a construction worker, has landed in trouble before.

His record shows multiple traffic offenses and he was found guilty in 2010 of assault on a police officer and obstructing the legal process, both gross misdemeanors, following a March 2010 incident in which he punched a man outside his home. When an Isanti County Sheriff’s deputy arrived at the house to speak with Weinzetl and his brother, Weinzetl shoved and punched the deputy, breaking his glasses and tearing his uniform. The deputy reported that he tried unsuccessfully to use a Taser on Weinzetl.

According to a statement Daudt made to the media, via KMSP:

In the statement, Daudt casts himself as a peacemaker in a tense situation. He said the friend retrieved the gun without his knowledge and stressed it was not fired. Daudt said the gun is owned by him, though it is not known if he has a permit to carry a concealed weapon in public. Daudt told KSTP that there were bullets in the magazine but not the chamber.

Daudt reports driving to Montana with the loaded gun under the front seat, and Daudt is a Concealed Carry Permit holder. While Daudt denied it to KSTP, he WAS apparently arrested in Montana, but not charged -- so far. His associate, who has been charged with multiple felonies, does not have a CC Permit, apparently, but would be eligible for one under MN law should he apply for one. The complaint can be read here.

So.....what did Daudt do wrong, and why does this reflect on Stand Your Ground laws, something likely to be introduced or attempted to be introduced, into the next session of the lege? And what does this incident show us about the problems in our current relatively lax Concealed Carry Permit laws?

First of all, multiple laws require that a firearm be transported unloaded and separate from the ammunition, in a locked container, and separate from the passenger compartment of the vehicle. This is true of state law for Minnesota, North Dakota and Montana law, and this is true of federal law. Holding a CC permit does not excuse someone from properly transporting their firearm when they are not carrying it.

Here is the MN statute, complete with link and the additional link relating to MN statute and transporting firearms:

2013 Minnesota Statutes

97B.045 TRANSPORTATION OF FIREARMS.

Subdivision 1.Restrictions.

A person may not transport a firearm in a motor vehicle unless the firearm is:

(1) unloaded and in a gun case expressly made to contain a firearm, and the case fully encloses the firearm by being zipped, snapped, buckled, tied, or otherwise fastened, and without any portion of the firearm exposed;

(2) unloaded and in the closed trunk of a motor vehicle; or

(3) a handgun carried in compliance with sections 624.714 and 624.715.

The first reference in section (3) refers to transport without a CC permit and is shown below; it is worth noting that Daudt was NOT transporting his firearm for purposes of repair or target practice; this is included here to illustrate that NO ONE may legally transport a loaded gun. It is also included here, because people who hold CC permits are expected to know the law. We should expect that to be especially true of our legislators who write those laws.

2013 Minnesota Statutes

Subd. 9.Carrying pistols about one's premises or for purposes of repair, target practice.

A permit to carry is not required of a person:

(5) to transport a pistol in a motor vehicle, snowmobile or boat if the pistol is unloaded, contained in a closed and fastened case, gunbox, or securely tied package.

But Daudt was NOT transporting his firearm for target practice or repair across a relatively short distance in Minnesota. Daudt was transporting a firearm across all or parts of three states. THAT puts his transportation under the regulation of the federal Firearm Owners Protection Act, specifically the Safe Passage Provision, courtesy of Cornell Law:

U.S. Code › Title 18 › Part I › Chapter 44 › § 926A
18 U.S. Code § 926A

- Interstate transportation of firearms

Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.

"IF, during such transportation THE FIREARM IS UNLOADED, AND NEITHER the firearm NOR any ammunition being transported is readily accessible" is the relevant part of the law here, because clearly Daudt's firearm was in fact both loaded and readily accessible, apparently during the entire trip.

THAT was illegal, unsafe, and irresponsible, yet we are told over and over again by the pro-gun crowd who want to carry their handguns everywhere they go, that they are in fact law abiding, safe, and responsible. Clearly they are not, as Mr. Daudt's behavior is not particularly unusual, AND appears to have the support of his fellow MN GOP members in the lege.

But the manner of transport, and allowing his handgun to be easily accessed for an illegal purpose - to threaten a man, his wife and children - is not the only objectionable behavior by Minority Leader of the MN House of Representatives. That Kurt Daudt also did not report the crime to authorities, but instead assisted his friend to flee the state after committing what is an alleged felony is also unethical, irresponsible, and apparently illegal. Daudt does not deny providing his friend with the keys to a vehicle to enable him to leave the state. This was presumably not only to help his friend, but because leaving the state was convenient and expedient for Daudt, regardless of flouting the law.

I don't claim to be an attorney, nor do I play one on tv. But this is a common legal definition for Accessory after the fact, which is a crime. Once again, thanks to Cornell Law:

Accessory after the fact

Definition

Someone who assists another 1) who has committed a felony, 2) after the person has committed the felony, 3) with knowledge that the person committed the felony, and 4) with the intent to help the person avoid arrest or punishment. An accessory after the fact may be held liable for, inter alia, obstruction of justice.

We have an instance where Daudt knew or reasonably should have known (as a person instructed in the law to become a CC permit holder) that threatening someone with a gun is a crime, and likely to be a felony. He was present and a witness to the events, and therefore clearly knew that this occurred. And he obviously knew that he was assisting his friend to leave the state rather than to risk arrest and punishment.

As a law maker, and as a responsible adult, he should have reported what occurred, not taken off for the border. Instead he provided the means for his associate to leave the state, or at least, attempt to leave the state. Regardless of whether or not Daudt is charged in Montana, this presents serious concerns about how law abiding and responsible he is -- or more precisely, is not.

That Daudt further attempted to keep this incident from the public indicates he presumably knew that this does not reflect well on his judgment, either as a law maker, or as a CC permit holder who goes about armed. It does not appear that Daudt made even a minimal attempt to comply with either federal law or the state laws of Montana and North Dakota before traveling across those states. That would seem to indicate a fundamental disregard and disrespect for law generally, and for the laws of other states specifically, which is NOT a desirable quality in the Minority Leader of the MN House of Representatives. It reflects badly on Minnesota.

It is worth noting that the MN BCA website, re reciprocity of CC permits, notes that MN does not have reciprocity with either NoDak or Montana, and that it advises (but does not require) checking with other states before travel - my emphasis added:

Permit to Carry Reciprocity

Minnesota permit holders who plan to visit another state, and who also wish to carry a concealed firearm while visiting that state, are urged to contact that state before traveling. This will allow Minnesota permit holders to determine all restrictions or prohibitions regarding the carrying of concealed firearms in those states, as well as their laws regarding firearms and weapons in general. Most of these states have web pages dedicated to this subject. State firearm laws and reciprocal agreements may change frequently, and are also subject to court interpretation.

Beyond the conduct of Kurt Daudt, it is likely that we will see a renewed effort to pass some form of Stand Your Ground law in Minnesota from the MN GOP members of the legislature.

Prohibitions for CC permits:
518B.01, subdivision 14; domestic abuse

609.224, subdivision 3
Daudt's associate, Weinzetl appears to qualify for a CC permit, in spite of a gross misdemeanor assault in the 5th degree IF it occurs within 3 years of a previous incident of violence, as his prior problems in this regard occurred in 2010 - unless he is convicted of a felony or plea-bargains down to a gross misdemeanor in Montana for this most recent brush with the law.

(b) Except as otherwise provided in section 609.2242, subdivision 3, paragraph (c), a person is not entitled to possess a pistol if the person has been convicted after August 1, 1992, of assault in the fifth degree if the offense was committed within three years of a previous conviction under sections 609.221 to 609.224, unless three years have elapsed from the date of conviction and, during that time, the person has not been convicted of any other violation of section 609.224.

(iv) 609.749; stalking
(v) 624.713; ineligible because of being a minor, drugs, mental illness, etc.
(vi) 624.719; not an illegal immigrant
(vii) 629.715, subdivision 2; under arrest for a crime of violence during very narrowly limited criteria (out of state arrests do not appear to apply among those criteria)
629.72, subdivision 2; summary of above domestic abuse, protection orders, etc.
and certain violations of federal gun laws

I find it VERY concerning that someone who has demonstrated repeated disregard for the law and the tendency towards violent actions and a lack of responsible judgment, including assaulting a law enforcement officer, still qualifies for a Minnesota CC permit, apparently even after a felony arrest in another state.

Add to that the evidence that in Stand Your Ground states, there is a lowering of the standard for shooting another person from objective evidence of self defense to subjective fear, and include in that the number of instances where under SYG unarmed people are threatened and shot, and it is clear that SYG is a problem, not a solution. There is no evidence that our CC permit laws, expanded in the previous decade, have made us any safer, or that CC permit holders are as safe, responsible and law abiding as they claim. We have seen instances of CC permit holders engaging in road rage shootings, and cases of children dying from firearms in the homes of CC permit holders. Guns, as we have seen in the incident involving Kurt Daudt's handgun, are too easily used to escalate violence, instead of people resorting to other alternatives, including leaving the conflict, or calling law enforcement, and those firearms belonging to CC permit holders are not reliably secured from others. Kurt Daudt is an excellent example of why we should not pass an SYG law in Minnesota. States with more guns and more lax gun laws have more gun deaths, gun injuries, and gun accidents than those that have more and more stringent gun laws.

Florida Shooting on Campus - It Was Self Defense

FOX 35 News Orlando

Virginia Gun Owner Who Shot Teen Intruder in the Back Still Not Charged

I probably filed this one under "Incredibly No Charges" when it happened. Guess I was right.

Florida to Expand "Stand Your Ground" to Include Warning Shots

(Ammoland.com)-  Florida state legislators are a step closer to expanding their Stand Your Ground law to include the ability to legally fire a warning shot.

The expansion being considered “would grant the same protections already in place under Florida’s ‘Stand Your Ground’ law to people who only threaten to use force.”

According to Fox News, a state Senate committee “voted in favor of the bill (SB 488) on [January 8] and a house committee has… voted in favor of similar legislation (HB 89),” as well.

If the expansion takes place, law-abiding citizens who fire a warning shot “would be immune from Florida’s ’10-20-Life’ law, which requires anyone who shows a gun while committing certain felonies…be sentenced to 10 years in prison.” If someone is wounded, the “10-20-Life” law requires a sentence of 25 years to life.

The push to expand the “Stand Your Ground” law is partially due to the plight of Marissa Alexander, who was sentenced to 20 years in prison after firing a warning shot during an argument with her estranged husband.

Her sentence was “thrown out by an appeals court,” and a new trial scheduled for this year.

In pressing for the expansion to include warning shots, state Senator Greg Evers (R-Baker) said the legislature is not going to put up with law-abiding Floridians being punished if they “brandish weapons, [and] even fire warning shots, to ward off would-be assailants.”

Florida Blind Man Who Shot and Killed his Drinking Buddy Granted Immunity Under 'Stand Your Ground' Law

John Wayne Rogers

Orlando Sentinal

The murder trial of a blind man was cut short Friday after a judge granted a "stand your ground" motion for immunity and ruled the man acted in self-defense when he shot a drinking buddy in the chest with an assault rifle.

Hours after the ruling, John Wayne Rogers, 40, left the Seminole County Jail, a free man for the first time in nearly two years.

He had killed James T. DeWitt, 34, an overnight guest on March 27, 2012, after a long drinking session in Rogers' home in Geneva, a rural community in eastern Seminole County.

Prosecutors charged Rogers with first-degree premeditated murder, and he was facing a possible sentence of life in prison.

Witnesses gave conflicting accounts of what happened that day, but defense attorneys described the case in simple terms: Rogers is a blind man who was defending himself from an attack in his home.

In the Rogers case, jurors heard two conflicting sets of facts: What Rogers said happened, that he fired a shot because he was under attack, and what the victim's girlfriend said, that the shooting was unprovoked.

Rogers has a history of violence. Four years ago, he fired 15 rounds from a handgun at Michael Rogers, his roommate and cousin, following a night of drinking and fighting in Geneva, according to court records.

Michael Rogers suffered scrapes but no gunshot wounds. The defendant was charged with aggravated assault but, in a deal with prosecutors, pleaded no contest to a lesser charge — unlawfully displaying a firearm — and was placed on probation.

That was revoked, however, when he pushed and punched a woman a year later, something that resulted in him spending 71 days in the Seminole County jail for domestic violence, according to court records.

Rogers shot DeWitt once in the chest with a .308 Remington assault rifle from a distance of 18 inches or less, defense attorneys said.

DeWitt and his girlfriend had gone to Rogers' house to drink beer and had spent the night, according to his arrest report, and the next day the group had made a 10 a.m. trip to the store to buy more beer.

The defendant testified that he asked DeWitt to leave but that the victim attacked him, so he went into the bedroom, retrieved his rifle, walked back into the living room and pointed it in DeWitt's general direction.

DeWitt then charged him, he said, so he fired one round.

DeWitt's girlfriend, Christina Ann Robertson, told Seminole County deputies that the two men had been "play fighting," something they sometimes did, when Rogers walked into another room, emerged with the rifle and shot DeWitt without provocation.

Before being blinded, Rogers served in the U.S. Marine Corps, defense attorneys said.

Colorado Man Shoots and Kills Stepdaughter Mistaking Her for a Burglar

Raw Story

A 14-year-old Colorado girl was shot and killed by her stepfather early Monday morning after he mistook her for a burglar entering their house.

She later died at a local hospital.

The Colorado Springs Gazette reported that the shooting took place around 6 a.m. Monday. Police were initially called to the house to respond to a burglary attempt.

The Associated Press reported that authorities are determining whether the stepfather acted recklessly. The state’s “make my day” law allows homeowners the right to shoot and kill an intruder in self-defense inside their homes if they feel the other person is there to commit a crime and use physical force against them.

Originally known as the Homeowner Protection Act, the law’s nicknames is a reference to Clint Eastwood’s oft-quoted line, “Go ahead, make my day,” from the film Sudden Impact.

No arrests were made at the time of the incident, and the names of the victim and her stepfather were not released, while police and prosecutors continue their respective investigations.

More on the Renisha McBride Shooting - Judge Says There's Enough Evidence to Go to Trial

Theodore P. Wafer at his arraignment.

Think Progress

A judge ruled Thursday that there was enough evidence for the Dearborn Heights, Mich. man who shot dead 19-year-old Renisha McBride when she arrived at his door to stand trial for murder. Delays in charging Theodore P. Wafer with murder sparked national protests over comparisons to the killing of Trayvon Martin. Wafer is white and McBride is African American.

During a two-day hearing, witnesses testified that McBride appeared injured after hitting a parked car at around 1 a.m., and that damage to the windshield suggested her head had struck it. At about 4:42 a.m., she appeared at Wafer’s door, likely seeking help. Testimonyalso suggested Wafer shot her from about 3 feet away, and hit her in the face, according to CBS Detroit.