Florida woman shoots her own mother during an assault at a convenience store.

[SecularMotion]

JACKSONVILLE, Florida -- A Florida judge is expected to rule in the next few days whether to accept The Stand Your Ground defense in the case of a woman who shot her own mother outside a convenience store in November 2011.

Shireeka Wilson, a mother of six, claims her mother, Valerie Rushing, attacked her at a Jacksonville gas station and was trying to kill her, First Coast News reported.

Surveillance video from T&S Food Market on West 45th Street shows Rushing enter the store looking for her daughter. When Wilson goes to her, Rushing can be seen attacking her. Wilson then goes back behind the counter of the store and grabs a gun.

The video shows Wilson go outside the store with her mother and shoot her.

http://blog.al.com/wire/2014/03/florida_woman_shoots_her_own_m.html

[ManiacJoe]

1. Forget Stand Your Ground.

Let's see her first successfully claim self defense.

[get the red out]

2. That's what I don't get

We already have laws that allow for self-defense in this country, I don't understand the supposed purpose of "stand your ground".

[ManiacJoe]

5. Some previous laws required a victim

to flee the attack even when it was bad tactics to do so.
Some prosecutors would charge victims with crimes for not fleeing even when the laws said fleeing was only recommended.
Laws then changed so that fight vs flee is a decision that the victim gets to decide. Fight tactics are now decided by those in the fight on a case by case basis, not by a one-size-fits-all law or on a prosecutor's whim.

The laws governing self defense have not changed.

[gejohnston]

7. most states self defense laws are common law

and are either duty to retreat or not (which is all SYG really is.) Although there are 24 SYG states by statute, there are 33 in total. The main reason Florida codified what was already their common law is to create the immunity hearing. At the hearing, if you request it, you have to convince the judge that it was self defense by preponderance of the evidence. If it goes to trial, the State has to prove it wasn't self defense beyond a reasonalbe doubt (which is true in all states.) Most of the time if it is obvious, the DA won't bother to press charges.

[rocktivity]

4. No SYG -- even if she hadn't had to get the gun

Last edited Thu Mar 20, 2014, 05:52 PM - Edit history (3)

There were TWO doors between Wilson and her mother that she could have locked, then called the police.


rocktivity

[Niceguy1]

26. just like the warning shot lady

[SoCalMusicLover]

3. I Was Missing My Daily Gun Story

It must be a slow day. Bummer the mom lived. Hopefully the daughter will find another gun and have the opportunity to finish the job off.

[ManiacJoe]

6. You forget the sarcasm tag, right?

[irisblue]

8. +1

[spin]

9. From the article it sounds like the daughter was attacked inside the convenience store. ...

Since the shooting occurred outside the store it would seem that the daughter chased after her mother. The basic idea of "stand your ground" is that an individual has a right to use force to stop an attack up to and including lethal force without first retreating. The force used should be no more than necessary to accomplish this.

If you get in an argument with your neighbor while he is watering his yard and he decides to spray you with the hose or to swing it at you, his attack does not justify lethal force. If someone loses his control and punches you, but he is roughly the same size and in the same physical condition as you are, his attack does not warrant lethal force.

On the other hand, if the attacker is armed with a handgun, a knife or a club and a reasonable man standing in the shoes of the victim of the attack would agree that the attack seriously threatened the health or life of the victim, lethal force is justified. If the attacker is much younger, larger and in far better physical condition than the attacker and a reasonable man would agree that the attack was serious enough to send the victim to the hospital for a long stay or the grave because of the beating. lethal force would be justified. (That is why it might not be a good idea for a young stud to attack a man over 65 and start beating the crap out of him. There's an old saying. "Don't attack an old man as he just might kill you.&quot

But "stand your ground" does not mean "chase down and kill." A citizen should have no right to pursue the attacker and injure and kill him. Once the attack is over, any justification for the use of force ends.

With the information I have about this case from the article and the video, the mother left the store and the daughter chased her. Not "stand your ground" in my opinion.

It is also my view that the 'Stand Your Ground" law n Florida law was so poorly written that it has allowed the legal system to let some people use it and walk free when they should have ended up in prison. I feel it needs to be rewritten to insure this doesn't happen in the future. However I disagree with those who feel it should be repealed.

I realize that state SYG laws are very unpopular with the media and many liberals. Every time someone's attorney tries to use this defense (especially in Florida) it may attract national attention. What rational people need to understand is that a defense attorney will try any tactic he can to defend his client. Sometimes it works:

Beyond ‘Affluenza’: Four More Unusual Defense Strategies
by Brandy ZadroznyDec 12, 2013 2:25 pm EST
A Texas teen has avoided jail time—despite killing four people with his pickup truck—by basically arguing he was too rich to know better. More of defense attorneys’ greatest hits.

North Texas teen Ethan Couch was facing up to 20 years in prison for killing four pedestrians and injuring several others in his speeding truck while drunk and on Valium. Instead, State District Judge Jean Boyd sentenced him to a decade of probation—thanks in part to defense witness Gary Miller, a psychologist who argued the 16-year-old suffered from “affluenza,” a condition of being given whatever he wanted from his rich parents without facing consequences. Miller claimed the boy was incapable of taking responsibility for the deaths because of his history with parents who indulged him with “freedoms no young person should have.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/12/12/beyond-affluenza-four-more-unusual-defense-strategies.html

It will be interesting to see how the Florida judge rules but if he drops the charges because he feels the daughter qualified for protection under the "Stand Your Ground" law, it will merely further convince me that the law needs to be rewritten.

[gejohnston]

12. that's what it looks like to me too

then the mother seems to attack again. Although I'm not a lawyer, this kind of looks like an imperfect self defense.
Going to the office to get the gun and going to the mother doesn't look good. How legally relevant it is, I don't know. Unless there is more evidence that wasn't mentioned in the news report (count on it.) I see this losing the immunity hearing and going to trial.

Florida's SYG isn't really different than California's. I still contend that the biggest problem Florida's law is how incompetent the media is in explaining it.

[spin]

16. The main stream media has little intention of explaining the SYG law in Florida ...

or any other state.

With the exception of the very conservative media, our press strongly supports any and all gun control measures and it's more than willing to distort facts and lie to further the cause.

For example for many years the mainstream media has portrayed semiautomatic that resemble fully automatic or select fire rifles as the same as those commonly used by the world's military forces. TV stations have often shown a video clip of a fully automatic rifle in use and claimed that the average citizen can buy such weapons at every Mom and Pop gun store in our nation or at the local Walmart. (It is true that a citizen can own a fully automatic firearm in some states but the cost of such weapons are far beyond the means of most people and there are far more restrictions to meet than apply to more common semiautomatic firearms. Walmart does not sell such weapons nor do most local gun stores.)

Over the years this has led to the development of a high level of distrust of the mainstream media. Firearm technology is not rocket science. If the main stream media, with all its resources, is unable or unwilling to learn the basic details about a subject as simple as firearms, why should I or anyone trust anything it says about far more complicated subjects.

The media has to realize that it has the right and freedom to exist because of the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights. In many nations freedom of the press is not allowed. Obviously the reason the press was granted this freedom was to be a watchdog of the government and also all those who control it and to sound an alarm when the other freedoms in the Bill of Rights were endangered.

What the main stream media often ignores is that its right to freely publish also involves a great responsibility. Not fairly reporting all the facts fairly is irresponsible and inexcusable. It's the media's job to simply put the facts in the hands of the citizens in a representative democracy such we have and to allow the citizens to determine through the voting process the path our nation follows.

I feel it is perfectly fine for the media to support its own views on any issue on the editorial page but not to editorialize in typical news stories. Such stories should simply deal with the basic facts such as "Who, What, When, Where and Why."

The fact that the media often does push its agenda on the gun control issue is one reason why it has the same level of trust with many citizens as a used car salesman. There are over 80,000,000 gun owners in our nation plus the members of their families who have familiarity with firearms. When they read an article about firearms that greatly distorts the facts, they lose trust in the source. Perhaps that can help explain the popularity of the more conservative press who usually gets the basic facts on gun owners and firearm technology correct. Unfortunately this allows many people in our society to trust the conservative media on far more complicated issues where they have an agenda and are more than happy to distort the facts and lie.

I realize that most in the mainstream media lean left and I have no real problem with this. However I feel that any good reporter or media outlet should keep any political views out of reports on news events. Simply and honestly report on what happened and when necessary publish an unbiased article on both sides of any issue.

I find it very difficult to form my views on any subject of political importance today. Obviously I can't rely on Fox News as it is far too conservative but the same is true of MSNBC which leans left. CNN falls in between and is perhaps the best source for important breaking news. Unfortunately they hire pompous Brits like Piers Morgan who feels he comes from a nation far wiser than ours and that he needs to instruct us on how we should behave. That might work if CNN also hired a more conservative host to offer an opposing view.

When I grew up and through much of my life, every major city had two major newspapers, one liberal and one conservative. In general they kept their editorial views out of the straight news stories. Unfortunately those days are gone.

It's difficult today for me to find a source for reliable and unbiased data to develop my opinions on any subject. I find this sad.

[gejohnston]

17. true but, my distrust and disgust of the media

date back to when AR owners were ridiculed as "mall ninjas", and had nothing to do with guns. April Oliver, Peter Arnett, and Judith Miller come to mind. Here is a more current non gun reason.
http://ethicsalarms.com/2012/12/06/ethics-dunce-cbs-tampa/

[KansDem]

27. Thanks for your well-reasoned analysis.

This information and the information you provided in Post No. 9 are extremely helpful.

[spin]

28. Thanks for your support. (n/t)

[Oakenshield]

10. Ah Florida.

Always ready to provide a story of insanity.

[spin]

14. An attorney can claim any defense he can come up with for his client. ...

Of course any attorney who does try for a stand your ground defense in Florida will probably attract national media attention especially if the case is at all questionable.

It remains to be seen if the judge agrees that this qualifies as a stand your ground case. If he does, it only reinforces my view that the law needs to be rewritten. Stand your ground should never mean chase and shoot.

Of course even if the judge does send the case to a jury, I predict it will make little difference to the national media. It will still be viewed by the press as why the Stand Your Ground law should be repealed in Florida and all other states.

[NYC_SKP]

11. Poverty and misery and lack of opportunity had nothing to do with this. It was the gunz.

If only someone would just take them all away then all would be right in the world.

[Oakenshield]

18. Don't peddle that horseshit.

That's not what gun control activists believe and you know it.

[oneshooter]

19. Then tell us poor gunbunnies what they do believe. n/t

[Oakenshield]

21. They believe..

They believe by passing strong gun control measures we will see a dramatic drop in gun violence across the nation. It won't be an absolute solution to gun crime, and it certainly won't "make everything right in the world" as SKP so insultingly stated but it will nevertheless be a clear improvement.

[Eleanors38]

20. There is a poll which is still up in GD...

which shows approx. 39% of DUers who responded as favoring "working toward" gun bans.

Have you voted in it?

[Oakenshield]

22. I haven't seen that poll.

Last edited Fri Mar 21, 2014, 01:58 AM - Edit history (1)

In any case, I took more offense from the way SKP was presenting gun control advocates as delusional; in that advocates believe gun control will "make everything right" as he so disingenuously claimed. Gun control advocates only want to address the gun violence problem we have here in America, a problem you won't find in a more liberal country like Australia.

[gejohnston]

23. certainly not delusional

but from what I observed gun control advocates come in three types:
People who honestly believe it, as you seem to. Misinformed, but not delusional. They I have respect for because they honestly believe it will have the desired results. Unfortunately, they seem to make up a minority of gun control advocates.
The other two, I have zero respect for:
Culture/class warriors (politicians, media types, and a lot of rich people) Notice they only say "gun violence" not violent crime, or "gun suicides" not suicides? It always struck me as odd because it implies that death or harm by other means is not as bad as using a gun. The only conclusion I can come up with is that they actually don't care about violence or suicide victims, just the guns, and the stereotype of people who own them.
The economic and political elites that don't like average people having votes and unions, let alone guns. They pay for the junk research (like Bloomberg and the Joyce Foundation) that manipulates the above two.

[Oakenshield]

24. For the most part your conclusion is contradicted by reality.

Republican politicians and donors, who definitely count as economic elites, are firm supporters of the NRA. And their relationship is quite reciprocal. The "gubmint/Obummer will take all our guns!" hysteria is by and large a thing of fiction. But more importantly for the NRA, it's a fiction that sells guns and ammunition. This climate of fear has made them a very tidy profit, and as long as it is profitable they'll keep that fear alive.

[gejohnston]

25. actually my conclusion is quite well grounded in reality

as Dr. Kleck's study suggests. It is also a conclusion developed by studying the issue in depth not only recent US but also other countries.

Republican politicians and donors, who definitely count as economic elites, are firm supporters of the NRA. And their relationship is quite reciprocal.

More accurately, the Republicans noticed that the NRA, and other gun rights organizations, can mobilize an enormous grassroots force. That is also the reason the Republicans have no desire to see Roe v Wade overturned, because abortion anti gay rights attracted evangelicals. According Tucker Carlson, they hate evangelicals.

Truth is gun control have been used for different reasons at different times throughout history. Most of the state and local gun laws that are eroding, especially in the south, were not put there to create a more civilized society. Florida banned open carry in 1893 because it was common for African American migrant workers to openly, some white people had a problem with that. Ever been to a Brady fundraiser? All black tie, all rich. Some even right of center like Sylvester Stallone.

The "gubmint/Obummer will take all our guns!" hysteria is by and large a thing of fiction. But more importantly for the NRA, it's a fiction that sells guns and ammunition.

That sounds like a cliche from TYT or some some talk radio head. Kind of like over using the term "packing heat", which was once only used in 1940s gangster movies. Ask yourself this:

This climate of fear has made them a very tidy profit, and as long as it is profitable they'll keep that fear alive.

fear and hysteria? Have you seen a Mothers Demand Action (which is really a fiction created by Voxpop Public Relations LLC, a PR firm Watts founded after leaving Monsanto as top PR flack.) pitch about CCW holders "putting our children at risk" when in fact, statistically, they are more peaceful and law abiding than cops? That last sentence, maybe Norway and Iceland have the right idea: high private gun ownership, mostly unarmed cops.

[Oakenshield]

29. Leading up to the 2012 presidential election.

You would find most NRA magazines ginning up fear with some article implying that with a second term Obama would confiscate all firearms across the country. It's a story that plays into the image where Republicans paint Democrats as dark and sinister big government types. The types that will give rise to a government where all the Republicans will have to grab their guns to defend liberty and freedom.... it's the stuff of tin-foil hats and fantasy.

As for statistics, I seriously doubt your CCW statistic can be legitimately supported. A cop is either cruising around looking for trouble, or he's being called to a crime already in progress. He/she is being actively thrust into situations with a considerable probability where violence may be called for. A CCW holder is a guy who wants to be ready should a robbery occur while he's shopping. Yes, the CCW holder is naturally not going to see as much violence as the cop.

Law-abiding wise, I wouldn't be surprised if that part was true. We're in no short supply of bad cops here in the USA, which is why the body-cameras being fitted to Police uniforms here in my native state of California is such a good idea. It's had extremely good results too. Oversight and regulations can do great things if given a chance.

[gejohnston]

30. just a few things

You would find most NRA magazines ginning up fear with some article implying that with a second term Obama would confiscate all firearms across the country. It's a story that plays into the image where Republicans paint Democrats as dark and sinister big government types. The types that will give rise to a government where all the Republicans will have to grab their guns to defend liberty and freedom.... it's the stuff of tin-foil hats and fantasy.

Did you read the articles for yourself or did someone like Cenk on TYT say it? Chances are, he didn't read them either. Either way, that is standard fare in any political propaganda. Fear mongering, name calling, demonizing the other guy. Name the cause, party, ideology, the same formula works for them all just my changing a few nouns. Ever get fund raising letters? The one you get from Planned Parenthood, (fill in the blank) For Life, etc often use the same form letter as the NRA or Brady Campaign. I have received enough of them to notice. It was the same as the "secret Muslim" bullshit from Beck, and the anti Mormon bigotry (White Horse Prophecy) from Larry O'Donnell and Mike Papantonio.

As for statistics, I seriously doubt your CCW statistic can be legitimately supported. A cop is either cruising around looking for trouble, or he's being called to a crime already in progress. He/she is being actively thrust into situations with a considerable probability where violence may be called for. A CCW holder is a guy who wants to be ready should a robbery occur while he's shopping. Yes, the CCW holder is naturally not going to see as much violence as the cop.

The DGU studies had nothing to do with CCW holders (because the major studies were before most states liberalized CCW laws) it included home invasions and basic being in the wrong place at the wrong time. The studies were replicated over the years. The latest CDC study and the FBI use 100K. The best study on the subject was done by Gary Kleck, had a huge possible range. It is a subject not really knowable. If you want, buy or pick up a copy at the library.

Law-abiding wise, I wouldn't be surprised if that part was true. We're in no short supply of bad cops here in the USA, which is why the body-cameras being fitted to Police uniforms here in my native state of California is such a good idea. It's had extremely good results too. Oversight and regulations can do great things if given a chance.

I was stationed at Travis for a couple of years. My boss (from New York) preferred Alabama over California. According to him, during his several years in Alabama, he never was stopped for driving while black. In the Fairfieild, Vacaville, Davis area, it was a weekly occurrence. The cameras don't help with non uniform cops and crimes committed while off duty, like domestic abuse.

[Boom Sound 416]

13. If it's not one thing

It's your mother

[ileus]

15. Sounds like another good reason to always carry a PSD.