Another Florida Night, another "Stand Your Ground" shooter exonerated.

[LSN80]

One would think that if George Zimmerman made huge headlines in Florida due to the death of Trayvon Martin, 17 year old Tyrone Pierson would do the same, maybe even moreso, due to the nature of his shooting.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...d-your-ground_n_3725858.html?utm_hp_ref=crime

Pierson, who is 17, will face two charges of unlawful possession of a weapon, and one charge of evidence tampering after lying to police, but won't face the most serious charge of all. Shooting 40 year-old Julius Jacobs in the head.

According to authorities in Marion County, Florida, Jacobs got out of his car after engaging in an argument with Pierson and two friends over speeding, with Jacobs brandishing a large stick. Pierson's friends did the logical thing, which was run away and avoid confrontation. Oh, Pierson ran away too, but not after firing what he said was a warning shot. It just so happens that said 'warning shot' hit Jacobs in the head, killing him instantly.

Does the fact that Pierson had options, like his friends had and did in running away, yet choose to fire, bother anyone else? A man with a large stick may be threatening, yes, but that's the perfect time to run away. If he follows, and happens to be closing in on you with said stick, shoot him then, I suppose. But to just fire? Yeah, I suppose he was 'standing his ground.' But I believe he had better options, ones that didn't necessitate in him firing a gun.

But it sickens me that this kid, a minor, will likely get probation for lesser charges, when he killed a man without necessity. But once again, Florida's "Stand Your Ground" law comes into effect, protecting Pierson from prosecution. Never mind he shouldn't have had the gun in the first place, being a minor.

"Stand Your Ground qualifies [Pierson] for immunity from any homicide charges even though he illegally possessed the gun as a minor without a concealed carry permit".

As I noted earlier, the fact that the kid was carrying a gun in the first place, while a minor, bothers me greatly. And because he was in violation of the law in the first place, he killed a man when he had other options. The fact that he fired a "warning shot", then ran, validates that. The fact that his friends ran away to avoid confrontation tells me he had other options.

Yet he chose to shoot the man in the head.

Should Tyrone Pierson qualify for immunity from prosecution under the Stand Your Ground law? Or do the extraneous factors(being a minor without a permit, having the option to run)mean he should be prosecuted for homicide?

All other thoughts on the story are welcome, as always. Poll is included.

 

[klunderbunker]

Isn't a warning shot supposed to go into the air? As in not at the person you're warning? If you shoot in the direction of the person you're warning, it ceases to be a warning shot and becomes shooting at them.

Anyway, no Stand Your Ground shouldn't work here but it will because that's how Florida works. Again, it's an excuse to protect those who own guns and make them the people with power in a situation and screw you if you don't have a gun with you. It's what happened in Martin's case and it's what's happening here. As mentioned, the other people in the car ran away, which is the logical move. But hey, why bother using what's logical and smart when you can just open fire on someone and worry about the consequences later? Oh wait: you have a gun so you don't have to worry about consequences.

Jacobs is clearly at fault here because he didn't have a gun with him and come up shooting. The fact that this statement isn't entirely hyperbole should sum things up pretty well.

 

[Natural Selection]

Ok, first of all "Stand Your Ground" was NOT a factor in the George Zimmerman trial. The man was threatening him with a weapon at close range, he is not obligated to retreat(Nor should he be), so therefore he is completely justified in shooting the man. Self defense is one of the most basic rights man has. While the shooting may have been avoidable that doesn't change the fact that it was justified, same as Treyvon Martin.

 

[Mac Attack]

Ok, first of all "Stand Your Ground" was NOT a factor in the George Zimmerman trial. The man was threatening him with a weapon at close range, he is not obligated to retreat(Nor should he be), so therefore he is completely justified in shooting the man. Self defense is one of the most basic rights man has. While the shooting may have been avoidable that doesn't change the fact that it was justified, same as Treyvon Martin.

I get that your all for guns and the ownership of guns and weaponry but in this one I can't help but say really?

How is shooting a warning shot which is meant to be up in the air firstly, and secondly not capable of hitting someone magically land in the guys head? Unless we're dealing with giants there is no way someone who has any knowledge of guns or possession of guns should be able to justify how this mistake happened. Now whilst you say he is completely justified in shooting because he felt threatened I have to ask you where you draw the line? Sure there was a confrontation, sure there was a dispute but from my understanding it was one man versus a group of people. Shouldn't the one man be justified in carrying back-up cause he's threatened? Wouldn't this be evening the playing ground?

The fact of the matter is he shouldn't even be allowed to have the gun due to being a minor, he had ample time to run cause clearly his friends did, and quite frankly he was not using the fire arm appropriately considering any sensible person knows a warning shot does NOT actually go towards a person.

You say self defense is one of our basic rights however what exactly was being defended here. There are no signs of a physical attack no signs of a brawl it was under the preconceived notion that there was potential for attack, and yet you say this is justifiable? So once again in your opinion where do you draw the line?

Should a minor lets say 13 years old be allowed to illegally bring a gun into school because he gets bullied everyday and the one day a group of bullies comes at him he kills them all and gets off scotch free except for a charge of having a gun as a minor? I think if you agree that's justifiable you need your head checked. There needs to be a line that can't be drawn and right now there isn't one.

Let's look at the options here in sequential order.

1) At driving school they tell you never get out of your car and talk to someone who is angry on the road. If neither driver pulls over for this, this is prevented.

2) Both parties in theory had equal playing ground. One with big stick the other with multiple people. I say this is even therefore no threat.

3) Two members had the ability to run away and be fine. Running away is now cowardly it can show you're the bigger man. If he runs there's no firing.

4) Warning shots are up in the air... Not at someone's face or near their face for that matter.

5) Striking first on the belief there's a problem is a scary precedent. There should be no way that society operates this way.

So to answer the question of LSN this is not justifiable, he should face murder charges and the law should be overrided due to all the circumstances that have been brought up.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

The George Zimmerman situation had a lot of unusual circumstances surrounding it. Whether you agree with the outcome or not, it wasn't nearly as cut & dry as this looks in my opinion.

In this situation, it looks like he just committed old fashioned homicide when he fired his "warning shot". As KB mentioned, a warning shot is generally fired into the air; it can also be fired at the ground not too far from the person's feet. When doing so, you also let the person know verbally that you will do what you have to do in order to defend yourself. In this situation, Julius Jacobs was brandishing some sort of stick. So unless he had some serious delusions of invincibility when faced with someone packing a gun while he had nothing but a stick, I believe that a LEGIT warning shot would have had the desired effect of backing Jacobs off.

As has been pointed out, Pierson could have merely done what his friends had done and merely gotten out of there in order to diffuse the whole situation. However, Pierson had a gun, one he wasn't supposed to have by the way, so maybe he felt like it made him a big man and he had a little something to prove.

Something that's also disturbing is that this took place over a month ago, yet where's the national attention of George Zimmerman? The article doesn't say anything specific as to Tyrone Pierson other than he's 17 years of age but I'm guessing that he's African American just like Julius Jacobs? If so, then it's not surprising that a shooting involving two black guys hasn't made national news. I mean, who cares right? After all, I guess the idea of a 17 year old black kid shooting a 40 year old black under the same controversial law isn't as juicy as a 17 year old, unarmed black kid being chased down, fought & eventually shot to death by a 28 year hold half Caucasian, half Hispanic man. Not at all surprising, though that doesn't make it any less contemptible.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Ok, first of all "Stand Your Ground" was NOT a factor in the George Zimmerman trial. The man was threatening him with a weapon at close range, he is not obligated to retreat(Nor should he be), so therefore he is completely justified in shooting the man. Self defense is one of the most basic rights man has. While the shooting may have been avoidable that doesn't change the fact that it was justified, same as Treyvon Martin.

The problem with the situation with Martin that has a lot of people I know up in arms isn't so much the Stand Your Ground law. Even though that's certainly generated a LOT of controversy all in all, it's that Zimmerman clearly profiled the kid, confronted him even though he had absolutely no business doing so, chased after him when the kid tried to get out of the situation altogether despite a 911 operator repeatedly telling him not to do so, allowed the confrontation to get physical, was getting his ass kicked and then shot the kid.

My father is 60 years old, not a particularly well educated man and doesn't know shit about politics. Not long after the verdict, he was talking to me about it one Saturday and said something I didn't expect and something that only seemed to mirror my own thoughts on the situation. He said he didn't agree with the verdict because he didn't buy into the self-defense argument, which surprised me as my old man would be labeled right wing or conservative in most subjects. I asked him why and he told me, "Because this Zimmerman guy's the one who started it. I just don't see how you can claim self-defense when you're the one that starts a fight when the other person's tryin' to avoid one. Even though the Martin boy did fight back, what else was he supposed to do? He'd already tried to avoid some kinda fight by gettin' outta there and Zimmerman ran him down on foot. They played tapes on TV where the woman that was the 911 operator Zimmerman was talkin' to told him not to go after him. Told him a buncha times not to, but he did anyhow." I decided to test him a little bit by reminding him that Zimmerman stated that Martin looked suspicious and that, as part of a neighborhood watch, Martin had a description similar to that of someone who'd been committing crimes in the neighborhood. He just shrugged and said "So what? Just because he kinda sorta looked like a guy that Zimmerman thought was committin' crimes in his neighborhood? Seems to me like he went after the boy because he was a black kid that he thought was up to somethin' sneaky. I don't know what you call it, cops gotta word for it, but that's what it seemed like to me." So basically, in my father's own very simple way, even he believes that Zimmerman resorted to racial profiling of Trayvon Martin and that the whole thing.

 

[Mustang Sally]

.... a warning shot is generally fired into the air; it can also be fired at the ground not too far from the person's feet. When doing so, you also let the person know verbally that you will do what you have to do in order to defend yourself.

Which reminds us that in many cases, a shot need not be fired at all. If Pierson brandishes the gun at the guy coming at him with a stick, the attacker will presumably back off. If he doesn't, I suppose the Stand Your Ground law allows Pierson to blast away. Great, huh? But if you plan to keep charging a person who's aiming a loaded gun at you, the chips fall where they may.

Of course, if Pierson doesn't have a gun, maybe the argument doesn't get as far as it did. If he and his buddies were unarmed, perhaps they never get out of the car to engage in the argument with someone who's acting like a maniac.

To me, this calls the mindset of people who are adamant about their right to own guns. Most are probably reasonable folks who want only to protect themselves and their families.....but I imagine there's also an element that's secretly dying for the chance to blow someone away. Often, those are absolutely the last people who should possess deadly weapons.

Pierson might very well have been one of these people. As a minor, he shouldn't have had the gun, anyway. But whether the weapon is legally in a person's possession or not, if you use it to kill someone, you ought to be charged with murder or manslaughter. Put the person on trial and let the legal system sort it out......and never mind the "minor" stuff. If the kid is old enough to procure a gun and willfully discharge it, he's old enough to be charged with the crime. There's a big difference between a 6-year-old minor and one who's 17.

 

[LSN80]

Ok, first of all "Stand Your Ground" was NOT a factor in the George Zimmerman trial.

Not the case. It wan't used by the defense as strategy in Zimmerman's representation, but if you believe it wasn't a factor at all, you didn't follow closely. It was discussed over and over as to the 'why' Zimmerman shouldn't and ultimately be convicted, and why Zimmerman ignored Dispatchers instructions in the first place.

The man was threatening him with a weapon at close range, he is not obligated to retreat(Nor should he be), so therefore he is completely justified in shooting the man.

Obviously he's justified, because he wasn't charged. But why did his friends retreat, safely, but he did not?

Because he was illegally brandishing a loaded weapon, and shot to kill.

Self defense is one of the most basic rights man has. While the shooting may have been avoidable that doesn't change the fact that it was justified, same as Treyvon Martin.

The fact that it was avoidable is the very reason that it's not justified. When you have another way out, that's the very definition of unjustifiable.

Both parties in theory had equal playing ground. One with big stick the other with multiple people. I say this is even therefore no threat.

I'm not so sure about this. I'd say the man with the gun has the advantage over the man with the stick, but I wasn't there.

Two members had the ability to run away and be fine. Running away is now cowardly it can show you're the bigger man. If he runs there's no firing.

If his friends were able to do it, why shouldn't he have been able to? His friends, I suppose, felt they had no other option, and did the smart thing.

The underage minor illegally brandishing the gun felt he had other options, which is the sad part. What happened to getting away from the situation, attempting to call the police, and only using the weapon if there's no other option?

When there's no other option, that's truly when it's self defense. If you haven't exhausted all your other options, I don't see how a Judge or Grand Jury can put Zimmerman on trial when he was getting pummeled, but wouldn't put a kid on trial who was illegally carrying and took a 'warning shot' that happened to hit the guy in the head.

Something that's also disturbing is that this took place over a month ago, yet where's the national attention of George Zimmerman? The article doesn't say anything specific as to Tyrone Pierson other than he's 17 years of age but I'm guessing that he's African American just like Julius Jacobs? If so, then it's not surprising that a shooting involving two black guys hasn't made national news. I mean, who cares right?

He is, and I wonder about this as well. The attention given to the Zimmerman trial was front-page news for months, both leading up to and through the trial.

This is the first I had heard of Tyrone Pierson and Julius Jacobs. How does that happen when one man shoot another in the face in another, one would think, controversial 'Stand Your Ground' incident? Two boys run away, but the one carrying the gun lies to police about being the shooter in the first place, or having the gun, yet this gets little-to-no media attention.

I think you hit the nail on the head as to why, sadly.

But whether the weapon is legally in a person's possession or not, if you use it to kill someone, you ought to be charged with murder or manslaughter. Put the person on trial and let the legal system sort it out......and never mind the "minor" stuff. If the kid is old enough to procure a gun and willfully discharge it, he's old enough to be charged with the crime. There's a big difference between a 6-year-old minor and one who's 17.

This is exactly how I feel. I'm not passing judgment and saying the kid should do 25-to-life here, I simply believe that this is clearly a case that needs to be explored further. Perhaps the judge or DA or Grand Jury knows more then you and I, and I'm sure they did. But it greatly concerns me that Pierson felt the need to lie about the incident if all he was truly doing was 'standing his ground.'

If he did nothing wrong in shooting Jones, what does he have to be dishonest about?

He's 17, younger have been charged as adults. If he's underage, unarmed friends could run away without incident, it's hard to see how he was unable to do the same. And he should face the possibility of accountability for it, and let his lawyer argue Stand Your Ground to a jury.

 

[klunderbunker]

At the end of the day, this sums up most of the case:

Just because you have a gun on you, it does not mean that's the reasonable response to a threat. The victim in this incident was brandishing a stick. Not a gun, not a knife, not a grenade, but a stick. A piece of wood that could probably be broken over a knee without much effort. The shooter's response to facing part of a tree? A bullet to the guy's head. I understand and agree with Pierson having the right to defend himself. However, using lethal force in this situation is NOT defending yourself. It's going far beyond the necessary means and then claiming it was required. The problem is that no, it wasn't required. Clearly the other people got away just fine without pulling a trigger, meaning escaping to safety was possible without shooting.

Let's look at the name of the law in question here: stand your ground. Standing your ground means not running away and staying where you are. Ignoring that this might be a bad idea in some circumstances, don't you think it's a BIG jump to go from staying where you are to having permission to start firing? That's not standing your ground. That's excused homicide in the name of self defense. This would be the same principle behind someone throwing a rock into another country and the second country launching a nuclear warhead. That's the idea behind stand your ground: if you feel threatened at all, you have the right to use maximum force. That's ridiculous and the reason a lot of people have wound up dead.

How far does this go? Can you claim self defense if someone says something to you? Or if they look at you the wrong way? A stick is apparently a big enough threat to kill someone. Why not a harsh glare?

 

[HBsam31]

KB mentioned above what I was thinking as I read down this thread. How far is this going to go. Soon we will hear about people getting gunned down for giving someone the middle finger. This type of shit scares me. My wife is as harmless as a fly, but when she gets behind the wheel everything another driver does even the slightest bit wrong sets her completely off. She honks and screams. It is like she turns into a different person. I keep telling her someone is going to react one of these times, and my real fear is someone is going to draw down on her. This guy should be charged with murder. I don't know a lot about Florida, but Jesus, it was a stick. That in no way, shape, or form should allow another person to put one in his head.