HomeCrimeFlorida Man Murders Two Neighbors in Public, ‘Bush Doctrine’ and ‘Stand Your Ground’ Cited as Defense

Florida Man Murders Two Neighbors in Public, ‘Bush Doctrine’ and ‘Stand Your Ground’ Cited as Defense

Having read that title, you’re probably expecting “another psycho from Florida” story. You were probably expecting the story of a white supremacist, footage of a skinhead screaming racial slurs at the camera while he rants about Obamunist gun grabbers and black helicopters. But, no. The truth is much more frightening. Because William T. Woodward hasn’t gone insane.

In spite of the fact that Woodward sneaked up on three of his neighbors during a labor day barbecue, and killed Gary Lee Hembree and Roger Picior (injuring Bruce Timothy, who survived 11 shots)…he’s completely lucid. He believes he had every legal right to do what he did. This is from the video below, Woodward speaking to his lawyer:

Woodward: “I was kinda hopin’ (my parents) were coming down to see me. Cause I know my momma’s going to be a nervous wreck.”

Lawyer: “Yeah, I understand. Parents are like that.”

Woodward: “See, I been tormented for the last month by these people. And they’ve been tormenting my parents, making threats against them. And they’ve just made our lives a living hell. And my wife…we can’t go anywhere without an escort. We can’t even let our kids outside.”

So, Woodward (according to him) felt a legitimate threat to himself and his family. Speaking as a Floridian, I can tell you it’s not the first time someone here has reacted that way under similar circumstances. So, that much at least isn’t unprecedented, and it still doesn’t mean he’s not just another raving psycho. Reading that passage above, it’s clear that Woodward was completely aware, had personally valid motive, and believed he was in the right. That’s not the frightening thing.

What truly scary is that this man, who for ANY reason, ran up and reloaded twice to fire 20 shots into three people in public…SINCERELY BELIEVES HE HAD THE LEGAL RIGHT.

Why would he think that?

His lawyers might have something to do with it. Far from setting up a defense for Woodward’s brutal murder they moved to have the case simply DISMISSED under (you guessed it) Florida’s Stand Your Ground law. The very same law that Zimmerman used when he proved to every Floridian asshole with a grudge that you could gun unarmed people down in public and get away with it, as long as you can prove you “felt threatened.”

The scum — sorry, lawyer’s — argument made reference to Enoch V. State, which suggested that an “imminent threat” could include something that is likely to occur at some point in the future. Woodward’s other lawyer, Robert Berry told Florida Today:

“I think legally that term has sort of been evolving especially given changes of our government’s definition of ‘imminent. It’s become more expansive than someone putting a gun right to your head. It’s things that could become, you know, an immediate threat.”

According to Woodward, the men said they were going to “Get him.”

Which, apparently, is all the “proof” you need in Florida.

Even more incredibly, the scum — lawyers — cited The Bush Doctrine, the “preventative/preemptive war” policy that Bush used to justify the invasion of Iraq.


I wish Woodward were insane. I wish his lawyers were just pulling some kind of crazy legal stunt to make the papers.  A rhyming Johnny Cochran thing.  But it’s much worse than that.

This is the America in which we live. We’ve gotten to this point. We’ve officially arrived at a place in our nation’s history where a man can hunt down three unarmed people, murder them in full view of the public, and EXPECT TO GET AWAY WITH IT. Whether he thought it was right or wrong is irrelevant; I watched the same thing happen four block from here 15 years ago, and the guy at least RAN AWAY. He HID. He LIED. KNEW he was going to prison if he got convicted, no matter how many threats he’d claimed to hear before.

He couldn’t find the verdict from a TV trial that justified gunning down an unarmed teenager.

He couldn’t use an illegal war, or the actions of The President of the United States as valid legal precedent for cold-blooded murder.

He didn’t have Fox “News” hiring war criminals, giving their opinion on why both were perfectly fine.

William Woodward hasn’t gone insane.

America has.

I don’t know about you, but right about now, THIS Floridian is feeling a distinctly imminent threat from Fox, the Kochs, and everyone who’s ever worn a teabag.

Here’s audio surveillance of the attack and footage of the man in custody from Crooks and Liars:

About Richard Rowe

Richard Rowe
Richard Rowe is a full-time freelance writer who has written over 3 million words in the last four years alone -- mostly on automotive and technical subjects. He's also a seventh-generation native Floridian, and was born and raised in the Ocala National Forest. A conservative soul turned Bull-Moose Progressive, he believes that "When change becomes necessary, the once impractical ideology of progress becomes practical, and maintenance of the status quo becomes the impractical ideology." And also, that "Rustoleum Black Enamel is a primary color."
  • Pingback: Florida Resident Claims Self-Defense After Jumping Fence to Kill Young Black Man in Hoodie | Americans Against the Tea Party()

  • Pingback: Unarmed Black Girl Shot in the Face While Seeking Help (Gun Justice, Part 1) | Americans Against the Tea Party()

  • Pingback: Bush Receives Prestigious University Award for "Humanitarian Efforts," Presenting Dean Has Affiliations with HERITAGE FOUNDATION | Americans Against the Tea Party()

  • Cyndi

    Zimmerman didn’t use stand your ground because if he had and it was found that he was not standing his ground then he couldn’t use self defense as his defense in a jury trial.

    • http://gravatar.com/johnf4303 JohnF (Boulder, Co)

      Not quite. Zimmerman didn’t need to use it, because it didn’t apply when he was on his back being pounded on.
      Before “no duty to retreat -outdoors” (which is a better tag for it), people were being prosecuted for not exhausting every possible means of getting away from a place they had a right to be, before using lethal force in defense.
      “No duty to retreat” has no application, outside of self defense. It was a modifier to self defense, saying that people didn’t have to back away and leave a place they were rightfully in, before using lethal force.

      It’s comparable to the no duty to retreat original application, which was in your home. People were being prosecuted for not leaving their own p[laces before defending themselves, so what’s known as “castle doctrine” was put in place. The outdoors version, which stupid media calls “stand your ground” was added similarly for outdoors situations.

      • Herbert Hardwict

        I think it’s rather amazing how John F is so comfortable with stating so as a matter of fact that Zimmerman was getting his head pounded when it’s very clear that only Zimmerman makes such a claim along with a neighbor who clearly demonstrated just how comfortable he was with the end result of a murderous crime of hate and disdain for a youth of color. There will be many cases such as those mentioned here and it’s sad because there are clearly those who want a race war with hopes of extinguishing a nation of people, pitting one nation of people against another. The foolish European who has nothing just like the poor African American man will be the one’s loosing their lives while the RICH continue to profit and prosper as a result thereof, but surely a far greater power and intervention will come into existence to wreak havoc on those who are the authors of such destruction.

  • http://gravatar.com/drpetersutphen drpetersutphen

    What a ridiculous piece of yellow journalism! All hypothetical. You can attempt to defend your client with any absurd defense you want, it doesn’t mean it is going to work. Walking onto someone’s property and shooting them is called first degree murder. The Bush doctrine is not a law and SYG does not apply to if you walk onto another’s property and kill them if they are unarmed. I assure you, this guy is going to jail for a long time. And yes, I’m a liberal gun owner from Florida!

    • Richard Rowe

      Hi, Dr. Pete! Just so we’re clear, I never once said that the defense they’re trying to use would WORK. I agree…there’s about a 99.99% chance this guy is either going to prison, or he’s going to fry. Either one would be too good for him. The point wasn’t that he’s going to get away with it…it’s the fact that he EXPECTED to get away with it, and his scumbag lawyers backed him up on it. The fact that he even expected to is a sad commentary on the state of our legal system, and the cultural precedents set by war criminals like Bush, Cheney and Rove. Just FYI, I’m a gun enthusiast, too. If you’re ever up in the Ocala National Forest area, let me know…I’ll take you out to the range to go blow some holes in stuff :)

  • Progressive Texas Democrat

    As a tourist in Florida the very fact that an unknown person could create fear in the heart of a native Floridian were I to accidentally walk down the wrong street, and that’s being kind, I think I’d rather visit, oh, just about any other place in the world.

    • http://gravatar.com/johnf4303 JohnF (Boulder, Co)

      You’re reading too much into it.
      The law in Florida, as just about anyplace else, says there has to be pretty good evidence that they had real cause for fear of immediate harm, and self defense was really needed to prevent harm. If you’re not giving them real cause of fear of serious harm, then what could you be afraid of?
      Note that in Florida, as anyplace else, prosecutors are all too happy to prosecute anyone with no ground for self defense. US DOJ facts show that by far most of the time when police immediately on the scene don’t buy a need for self defense and arrest the supposed “defender”, they turn out to be right in their assessment, and the crook goes away.

      • Richard Rowe

        John…you don’t know what you’re talking about. When was the last time you stood in a courtroom in Florida? You read the Ocala Star Banner, the Tampa Tribune or the Orlando Sentinel? Do you walk the streets here, and have you ever had someone tell you YOU had to leave because THEY felt threatened? Even walked the public streets at night and had a rifle pointed out a window at you because you “looked threatening?” Even had the cops pull you over afterward with guns drawn because someone reported you for walking around “looking suspicious?” No? Well, I have seen and done all those things, right here in Florida. You know what you think you know based on what makes national headlines, but you have no idea of the reality on the ground here. You don’t know about all the people who walk away from obvious assaults claiming self-defense on a daily basis, because it doesn’t make Yahoo News. I don’t give a DAMN what USDOJ statistics show, I’m here looking at it first hand, and I’m telling you what the cops and the gun nuts are doing. Treyvon Martin, this guy…these cases are outnumbered 10,000 to 1 by the cases that don’t make the headlines, or the daily acts of terror that never get reported.

  • Liberalsarefilth

    No, I didn’t think of as skinhead when I first heard this. The first thing I thought was more Jews slaughtering the Palestinians as usual.

    • Richard Rowe

      Actually, contrary to popular belief, we don’t really have enough Palestinians in Florida for the Jews to go on their standard killing sprees. And the Jews we do have here pretty much hang out south of Ft. Lauderdale, controlling the media using the secret Stars of David they’ve hidden inside the weather radar towers.

      • https://www.facebook.com/sophia.fields1 Sophia Fields

        lol I really wish there was a like button for your comment!

        • Elle Meryn

          I really wish there was a delete button for YOUR comment….

          • Richard Rowe

            I really wish I had four tiny flashlights and four cuddly panda bear cubs who could fly, sing and tell time. I would have them wake me up every morning by hovering over my bed and reenacting the video from Bohemian Rhapsody. lol…Thanks, Sophia.

  • http://gravatar.com/johnf4303 John Frazer

    This nut is just that. And he’s going to go away for a long time. The Shrub doctrine is criminal in international law which the US helped institute and set precedents for.
    The present stuffed shirt in chief is just as criminally culpable for allowing it to continue and letting the previous gang of crooks get way free (in O’s inaugural address, he THANKED Shrub for his service…)


    This author is ignorant or just likes lying to drum up hysteria.
    – – – – quote – – – –
    “Stand Your Ground law. The very same law that Zimmerman used when he proved to every Floridian asshole with a grudge that you could gun unarmed people down in public and get away with it, as long as you can prove you “felt threatened.””

    Zimmerman didn’t use “no duty to retreat”, and the law doesn’t mean what this idiot trying to sound like an author makes it sounds like.
    And Zimmerman had every right to use lethal force against the man on top of him pounding on his face.

    • Richard Rowe

      I already wrote this in response once, but here it is again…

      “Zimmerman initially requested a “Stand Your Ground” hearing, but in March 2013, his defense elected to bypass the hearing so that his case would be tried before a jury.”

      Zimmerman DID try to use SYG to justify the homicide at first, which is how it came up in the first place. He knew the law, and he knew before the trial that it granted him a certain amount of protection from prosecution. The fact that his legal team elected not to use it in the trial later is irrelevant; they knew it didn’t technically apply, since he claims he was restrained at the time. And they knew he stood a better chance in front of a loaded jury than to try to use SYG at a hearing, which would have gone nowhere except right back to trial. When I say he “used” the law, I mean that at the very least he “used” it to justify the killing, at least in his own mind. He made that clear before the trial.

  • joe

    Zimmerman claimed self-defense, not syg. Just another typical liberal idiot blaming a sociopaths problems on conservatives.

    • Terry Rogers

      Problem is, Joe, several of the jurors acknowledged after the trial that they used the SYG law as part of their considerations on the matter of self-defense.

    • Richard Rowe

      Hiya, Joe! Well, tell you what…I apologize for not getting into every specific detail of the trial. I probably should have just pasted this in.

      “Zimmerman initially requested a “Stand Your Ground” hearing, but in March 2013, his defense elected to bypass the hearing so that his case would be tried before a jury.”

      Zimmerman DID try to use SYG to justify the homicide at first, which is how it came up in the first place. He knew the law, and he knew before the trial that it granted him a certain amount of protection from prosecution. The fact that his legal team elected not to use it in the trial later is irrelevant; they knew it didn’t technically apply, since he claims he was restrained at the time. And they knew he stood a better chance in front of a loaded jury than to try to use SYG at a hearing, which would have gone nowhere except right back to trial. When I say he “used” the law, I mean that at the very least he “used” it to justify the killing, at least in his own mind. He made that clear before the trial.

      This is where I point out how good Teabaggers are at labeling people the don’t agree with “libtards” or the like, and presenting a literal reading as contextual truth.

    • opus

      The jury instructions included syg. You can’t reach a verdict on self-defense without knowing what does and does not constitute self-defense under the law. That much should be self-evident, and is well-documented.

    • Michael

      Actually Joe, Zimmerman initially did claim SYG right up into the trial. Then his attorney’s dropped that angle because they knew it wouldn’t work if they tried to prove that.

    • humanerror

      Zimmerman’s defence did not claim SYG, but DESPITE that, the jury considered it in their deliberations.

      Knee-jerking does nothing for anyone, unless you get off on that sort of thing. Being informed, however, can work wonders.

    • Thorsten Stier

      You really don´t get it!? This is not about Rep vs. Dem….it´s about your country going nuts!
      Don´t be so excentric thinking everything´s bout you and your party…..be more empathic and try to think what a wave of violence cases like this and Zimmerman´s could enforce

    • Berns

      The court and Jury ruled the SYG. But you are right, Zimmerman did claim self-defense.

    • fred

      SYG was introduced as a possible defense by FOX news not this article.
      The reason that this article used it is because it has been in the news not because zimerman used it as his defense..

      Im an avid gun owner and collector. SYG is a bad law in its present wording.

    • scyllacat

      Republicans: The party deliberately proclaiming sociopathic behavior as part of their platform, but whatevs, bro.

  • Michael

    Well, I guess we are all going to have to carry guns, to protect ourselves from the gun nuts, the zimmemans, the haywards, and the like. No more law I guess, everyone needs to look out for themselves these days.

    • https://www.facebook.com/jonathan.jeffer.1 Jonathan Jeffer

      And be very very polite to each other…

      • http://www.fearlessradio.com fearlesskris

        The people on the pro gun side of this argument are about as far from polite as is possible. I’ve been threatened (skin me alive and hang me for the animals to eat, just one example), called the worst possible names, and generally met the worst sort of people supporting gun ownership. It’s hard not to paint all with the same brush when the gun owners who have a sane approach to background checks and limits on numbers of rounds sit back and let the others do the talking/threatening/squealing/crying. They are all re-enacting the final scene in Reservoir Dogs in their minds eye and somehow coming up with a win situation. It’s no win. No win with guns.

        • Richard Rowe

          Actually, Kris, you might be surprised. A lot of gun owners are pretty reasonable…you just never HEAR from those types. It’s always the ignorant, white-trash, Anarcho-Teabagger types who go out into the streets screaming about their gun rights and the Gummint comin ta get them and SCREW YOU libturd! But there is a silent majority here. True, the loudmouth rednecks are a big chunk of the demographic. BUT…22% of gun owners are liberal, and 37% identify as moderate. 30 to 37 percent are college or post-college grads, and national gun ownership is about 39% right now.

          One thing you have to bear in mind is that some people own guns for a hobby, some own them for home defense, some collect and shoot them as a hobby, and some people have them becasue they HAVE to (Cops, security, ect.) The ones you always hear from are the ones who own them because they live in a state of perpetual terror and social impotency. In 1977, 51% of people owned guns, and gun ownership steadily declined to an alltime low of 31% in 2000. After 9/11, it pretty much immediately shot back up to 43%. It’s at 39 now.

          So, think about it…difference between now and pre-9/11 is about 8% of the US population…THOSE are the people who live in perpetual terror, and who can never shut up about their right to bear arms. The other 31% or so…they outnumber the fear-psychos by 3 or 4 to 1, but they’re not out screaming in peoples’ faces on the news.

          Granted, lots of gun owners do have pretty strong opinions about their right to own a gun. They have one for a reason. But we’re the ones who also understand that a tool that powerful doesn’t belong in some peoples’ hands, and some don’t belong in ANYONE’S hands. But you have to go find them…they’re not going to find you, because they’re not going to run up and scream in your face.

    • Bill Mc

      I’m really sick and tired of these GUN TOTING “it’s my Second Amendment right to own guns” bullshit that the even minded people are trying to take away their guns.
      We are not, I repeat NOT TRYING TO TAKE AWAY YOUR DAMN GUNS!!!! We are simply trying to regulate, YES REGULATE guns as stated in your FUCKING SECOND AMENDMENT that’s so precious to you says!!!
      As I have my copy of the Constitution I’m reading says:::
      AMENDMENT II: Right to Bear Arms:
      Do you RWNJ’s not get the meaning of REGULATED?????
      And yes I DO HAVE A COPY!!! Which I’m sure the nut-jobs DONT!!!!!

      • http://gravatar.com/johnf4303 JohnF (Boulder, Co)

        Look around and moderate the other so-called “liberal progressives” (who are neither) who are very certainly wanting to take away the 2A and any right to own arms.
        Tell it to the ones who state openly that it’s known that sensible regulations won’t affect crime or mad mass shooters, but serve to desensitize the public for more incrementalism, and their stated goal always is total prohibition.

        After these “sensible regulations” fail to stem crime or nuts, they’ll claim the need for more draconian solutions. Ten rounds? Maybe 7. or 5, or 3. Eventually, nothing with any sort of repeater capability beyond the first chambered round. Eventually even that (ignoring that criminals and the black market will still be bringing in things like regular full capacity magazine-fed semi auto copies of military rifles, which aren’t machine guns or assault rifles. Places with full draconian prohibition, and they’re totally incapable of stopping the black markets from bringing in real machine guns and assault rifles.)

        I also have copies of the Federalist Papers to show how far away from the intent we are in so many ways.
        According to the original federalist intent, civilians should have access to anything a modern state of the art infantry unit might deploy with, and neighborhood/county/regional militia should have real heavy military equipment, and the levels of government should have not even police forces let alone militarized police with military equipment, training and orders.
        I think it would be nice to have no foreign military adventures for corporate profit and political graft. If it required an informed populace to tell their congress to muster the people for defense of the borders or rights, maybe it wouldn’t happen (along with other hard-nosed ways of keeping money out of politics). Instead of our situation with federally employed cheap mercenaries fighting for free access to resources under foreign soil, and we the people foot the bill.

        Interesting that as part of “sensible regulations”, the US vs Miller case said that civilians should have access only to weapons suitable for military service, hence under their mistaken ruling, short shotguns had no military history or utility. Now in the guise of “sensible regulations”, they’re saying that semi-auto copies of military-styled rifles are weapons of war which civilians have no business with.

        • Richard Rowe

          The people who wrote the Federalist Papers has muskets, john. they had bayonets. They didn’t have machine guns, sarin gas, anthrax, AMRAAM missiles, tanks, aircraft carriers, nuclear weapons, mustard gas or any of the other hundred things your wouldn’t want the paranoid psycho two wooded lot down getting his hands on. When you’re comfortable with the craziest and most hateful person you know having access to nerve gas and a list with your kids’ school bus number on it, then you can talk all you want about how laws about musket balls apply today.

          With the technology we have today, there are only two directions we can take. We can follow the Federalist Papers to the letter and turn every neighborhood in America into Syria, or we can get real and realize that we have to use our brains about who’s allowed to have what. I know you don’t care about turning America into a warzone, because you live on the set of Red Dawn. Fine for you. Try living with thousands of people crammed around you, all with access to weapons of mass death, and then say the Federalist Papers mean a damn thing today.

          The level of weaponry we’d need to even attempt to mount an insurgency against the Federal government today is so far beyond what’s already available that the idea is laughable. You might be able to take out Sheriff Boo and Depity Diddly with your 30-06 and call it an insurrection. But if Uncle Fed really wanted you dead, you’d have a hard time shooting that Hellfire missile out of the sky.

          Get with the 21st Century, John.

          • http://gravatar.com/johnf4303 JohnF (Boulder, Co)

            You make the point for me, that citizens should have access to anything a modern infantry unit might deploy with, and that the government shouldn’t have access to standing forces, even police, without calling up the regional militias to muster with the equipment they take hoe, and heavy force projection stuff they bring from their local armories.
            Things with no military utility like NBC weapons, certainly don’t belong in the hands of the government, any more than the guy down the street.

            You really think the constitution only meant flint-lock muskets in the 2A? Then the 4A doesn’t apply to your hard drive, or email or phone records, or anything printed on anything more modern than a manual-set-type printing press. The 1A certainly doesn’t apply to radio, TV, email, facebook, twitter, telex, or anything carried by wire or satellite ink. The fifth didn’t apply to anything more either.
            They didn’t know anything about what someone could do with a network of radio & TV stations and numerous bloggers & authors sending material in via modern methods, so the 1A only applies to handwriting with quill & ink or old printing presses or vocal speech.

            If the intent of the founders, as set forth in the very arguments they used to get the people of the states to ratify it, doesn’t mean anything today, then it’s indeed long past time for a new constitutional convention, because nothing we use today has any meaning other than shallow tradition.

            Our present dysfunctional condition only says that congress and the people have been sorely remiss in keeping up what should have been going on. Letting bankers take over politics as well as media and money, we’re nowhere close to where we should be, and if you want to unilaterally disarm the people in the face of a corrupt plutocracy with ample precedent of using brutality to keep itself in the saddle, then you’ve definitely got your own ideas of how we should prepare for a future.
            I should have realized the so-called “liberal progressive” plan to restore democracy… After they mass arrest peaceful protestors who’ve survived military force used against civilians, we can write petitions and vote them out of power. How simple!

  • Alexander

    I really wish Zimmerman instead pulled his car up to Martin, identified himself as a neighborhood watch, and then offered to give the kid a ride home. How awesome would that have been?

    • http://gravatar.com/montium montium

      He wasn’t neighborhood watch. He was the go between for a meeting with a watch group. That’s as close as he ever got to being on a neighborhood watch. Also as another poster said, he didn’t use SYG as a defense. Try not to let bad reporting distort what actually happened. I still think he should have gone to jail but get the facts right.

    • http://gravatar.com/johnf4303 John Frazer

      Instead, the kid didn’t go home after breaking initial sighting contact,. He doubled back, accosted the man following him, and attacked him relentlessly threatening to kill him, not letting him up or defend himself, giving him no choice but to use lethal force.

      • http://gravatar.com/roninllc roninllc

        That’s according to Zimmerman’s story of events, which the actual evidence didn’t support.
        Zimmerman had to claim that the kid attacked him to make it look like he was defending himself.

        • http://gravatar.com/johnf4303 JohnF (Boulder, Co)

          According to any data available. You have certain information to the contrary? Then blame yourself for not presenting it to the prosecutors.

  • go go

    The Bush Doctrine is a good excuse for him to get off (You may commit torture or mass murder as long as you are able to lie.It is not required to be an effective lie.) Precedent has been set.

  • GailP

    I am currently reading a novel about life in the 1600’s. Life was brutal then, lots of innocent and not so innocent blood spilled, in often very gory ways..
    Kind of like today.
    This man is a triple murderer, plain and simple. No law, regardless of legal precedent, justifies what he did.

    • Richard Rowe

      Sounds like a great book…I’ll bet Rand Paul masturbates to it lol. I bet we all wish every Teabagger and Anarcho-Capitalist would pick up that book and get educated on the system they’re fighting to bring back. But…I think we know the odds of THAT happening…about 1600-to-1 lol.

      • Rebecca

        lol @ your Rand Paul comment!

      • https://www.facebook.com/tenpin.struggler Tenpin Struggler

        Richard, if they read the book, they would use it as an Instruction Manual instead of a cautionary tale.

  • https://www.facebook.com/ken.orcutt.7 Ken Orcutt

    First Zimmerman was never guilty of anything. LET IT GO!
    A wannabe gansta thug just shy of his 18th birthday bit off more than he could chew and paid the price. He should have went home. Every single piece of evidence against Zimmerman was fake and/or made up.

    This guy in the article here may have called the police (journalists with guns) and asked for help (so they took a report). We do not know. If so and the police replied with their standard lazy assed “we can’t do anything” then the man might have good reason for doing what he did. YOU DON”T KNOW.

    But by your comments about an innocent man who was attacked by a wannabe gansta shows me the rule of law means nothing to you. We do not deal with people according to YOUR EMOTIONS. We use laws which have been passed.

    If the 3 men that were shot are shown to have been harassing this man and his family and the police would do nothing, he is NOT GUILTY.

    • Mike Coppola

      The child killer should have gone to jail and you should seek psychiatric help.

      • https://www.facebook.com/fran.seragusa Fran Fiore Seragusa

        second that!!!

      • http://yahoo Ken orcunt

        Ken Orcutt you are the most insane person it has been my mispleasure to read. I would rather live with el quida than live in the same State as you. You are SICK.

        • http://[email protected] SHubb

          Wow Ken, might have those undies on a little tight. They are pinching the blood flow of to your main brain. I cannot imagine you actually have a cerebral cortex, and function solely off the tiny little stick in your pants, because a normal human being cannot be that stupid. It is an out for you… take it…

          • G.I.

            SHubb you must be speaking from experience.

          • Brian O’Connell

            He can’t even spell Al Qaeda properly, there’s yer sign.

    • cameron

      you must be ignorant, or perfectly fine with murdering innocent people, or murdering people you accosted first. either way, you should leave the states, or try suicide by cop, see how friendly guns are then

    • Aidan Reynolds

      Yeah seriously psychiatric help would probably be good for you. I’m 16 years old and I’m astounded by the claims you make in your comment. If you honestly think that killing two unarmed people merely because you “feel threatened by them” is an innocent act, then you are the one showing me that the rule of law means nothing to you. The right to bear arms is in our constitution in case we need to revolt against our government, not so we can go around killing innocent people and expecting to get away with it because of Florida’s unjust laws. And if this man had personal access to weapons and multiple clips for those weapons then why did he feel so “afraid” of these men, who may or may not have threatened him and his family in the first place

      • https://www.facebook.com/jay.merrick Jay Merrick

        Well written, there may be hope for the future yet.

    • http://gravatar.com/rengeko rengeko

      and what if he was lying all along? too bad, so sad-they’re dead. can’t really come back from that.

    • A.G

      @Ken Orcutt: So, when it comes to Zimmerman, we don’t know the truth about what happened to him. All evidence against him was “made up or fake” and we should just let it go. It was some thug wanting to attack Zimmerman and he deserved what he go is the impression that I get from you.

      Now, we see this story of this guy stalking and killing people on their own property and you want to say the same old story: “We don’t know the truth about what happened….”

      I agree with you on both counts but I have to say this: Most people here saw the video. This guy parked his truck, hunted down and killed three people. He made multiple sweeps of the area to purposely kill someone. Treyvon Martin and George Zimmerman had no credible witnesses around them and no video cameras to record the events that happened… Treyvon was gunned down by Zimmerman.

      In both cases you want to defend the person with the gun and not the people who lost their lives. The Martin / Zimmerman trial needs to be re-investigated because there is a lot of truth that did not come out in that trial…. In this case we see here: That fucker *hunted and killed* his targets be making sweeps on his victim’s property…..

      What kind of fucking “SPECIAL” are you? You’ve got something fucked up in your brain and you need help because even Ray Charles could see the fucking problem here…..

    • Richard Rowe

      @ Ken: While I realize that it’s uncouth to quote yourself, I have to say this: You’re exactly the kind of person I’m talking about when I say “Anyone who uses the law as any measure of morality has none of their own.”

      You’re right that Zimmerman was “acquitted.” You’re wrong that he wasn’t guilty, or in any statement remotely alluding to the word “innocent.” The legal system has always been amoral by nature, but never has it been less just than it is today. ESPECIALLY in Florida. I live here, I know. You’re basing your ideas on the outcome of a court case…try basing them on your concepts of right and wrong, if you ever come up with any.

    • Scott

      congratulations Ken Orcutt, you have just made the most idiotic and ridiculous statement I have ever read on here. At no point did you come even close to anything that could be considered a logical and coherent point. Everyone on this site is dumber for having read that post. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on us all.

    • Ruth

      To Ken Orcutt – You are as full of sh*t as A Spring Robin.

    • Froggy Alley

      I guess every school kid should have a gun too for when they feel threatened or bullied on the playground, or by their parents interfering with their “pursuit of happiness”. Maybe I should get a gun too when I feel threatened or sexually harrassed at work. ummm…yeah.

      Stay out of Florida.

    • https://www.facebook.com/tenpin.struggler Tenpin Struggler

      A “legal” must be proportional. Shooting someone because you are being “harassed” is far from proportional. It is an excuse; and a poor one at that.

  • KurtB

    Every law ever written has been stretched beyond its intent by slippery lawyers. Zimmerman’s use of deadly force against an assailant willing to use deadly force against him was justified. This guy is just plain a murderer. You have no proof he considered SYG BEFORE his rampage.

    • http://www.facebook.com/jacob.rice.14 Arawhon

      So stalking a kid as he was heading home and murdering because your a paranoid racist is perfectly OK? That Trayvon reacted like most any teenager and tried to make a scary stalker stop what he is doing is beyond the pale and deserves death? You make me sick. You’re just another racist white dude.

      • KurtB

        George Zimmerman was asked by the dispatcher if he could give Martin’s location. Martin was closer to his destination than he was to George Zimmerman, who by that time was walking back to his truck. Martin doubled back and confronted Zimmerman, not the other way around. G.Z. profiled T.M. because of his youth, dress and actions, not solely because of his race.

        • Red Cabbage

          Yes, and I sell bridges at a cut rate price. You seem like the type of discerning person I could sell to. I’ll even knock a little off the price. I don’t do that for everyone–just smart people like you, KurtB.

        • DaveS

          I have to agree, that’s what I took away from the trial. The prosecution characterized it as Zimmerman hunting Martin down and killing him in cold blood, but that didn’t stand in the face of witnesses’ testimony. It’s not illegal to surveil someone, but it IS illegal to assault someone. Martin did the assault, not Zimmerman. Oh, and Zimmerman didn’t use the Stand Your Ground law as a defense. It was straight self-defense of life.

          • Brian O’Connell

            Because “OMG, my victim’s fighting back!” is ample recourse.

        • G.I.

          KurtB and DaveS (That also includes all the jurors in the trial): If you honestly believe that BS, then I’m the Prince of Nigeria and I have some money I want to share with you if you just send me a small fee is $1,000 to help me get to stash.

  • Dakenn

    This is ridiculous and horrible. Don’t stoop to calling people scum though. I expect better from you.

    • Jeff

      Ya, know…any lawyer that wishes to defend this piece of shit is scum…and that’s being polite…execute his ass and we won’t need a trial…

      • http://gravatar.com/rengeko rengeko

        everybody is entitled to a competent defence. not one completely out of touch with reality.

  • https://www.facebook.com/GhostLord89 Andrew DiNanno

    I hear about more and of these types of incidents and I lose more and more faith humanity and in this country. If this kind of crap continues to happen it could eventually lead to civilian warfare, descent into anarchy, the collapse of the United States and the extinction of the American people.

    • https://www.facebook.com/fungafat Sean Richard Douglas Fung-A-Fat

      I’m liking the sound of that, but I’m assuming you didn’t mean those things in a positive way.

  • Veteran

    This guy and his lawyers are an “imminent threat” to everyone, so can we just shoot them now?

    • https://www.facebook.com/fran.seragusa Fran Fiore Seragusa

      you are a person of few words, but damn are they on point!!! kudos!

  • William Hipps

    Premeditated murder, pure and simple. This guy should have a date with “Ole Sparky” in the not too distant future. That would stop this foolishness.

  • cherie

    When Nazi Marin/sf family court robed mother and children legally this case is no exception!

  • http://www.minicatracingusa.com Jim S

    THIS is why we need gun control in this country. These NUTS, feeling justified by the Stand Your Ground Law and support from the NRA, etc. override ALL of the normal gun owners in my opinion. It is normal that when things continue to happen, laws are passed. The new laws effect everyone, not just the bad guys.
    It is time to effect EVERYONE that has guns. The 2nd amendment was fine when it was written but it doesn’t apply today in an advanced society.

    OK righties, go crazy on my ass now.

    • creekside

      Lefty here, not righty. Why should the law abiding public be punished for the actions of a crazed few? This is America, we do not indulge in collective punishment for sins — and the Supreme Court has consistently held that our human and civil rights persist despite changes in technology, otherwise you’d be commenting with a quill pen. As a Pink Pistols member, I believe that the human and civil right of self defense protects the minority from abuse and hate crime, and access to firearms has saved many more lives than it has taken.

      • AATTP

        Please provide peer-reviewed verifiable evidence that “access to firearms has saved many more lives than it has taken.”

      • Richard Rowe

        Hi, Creekside. I understand where you’re coming from. I’m left-leaning myself, and I wrote this article. I’m also a gun enthusiast and owner…this is the first article I ever wrote for AATTP:


        Not mentioned in the article is the fact that I’ve got a disassembled and polished AK-47 hanging in a lit case in my living room. So I identify with you. But controlling who has firearms isn’t collective “punishment,” any more than controlling who has access to flamethrowers and missile launchers. Both of which should have been covered by the 2nd Amendment. As technology progresses and time goes by, we have to reassess our needs and what’s good for everyone. Gun owners and non-gun-owners alike.

        Of course you have the basic human right to self-defense…every organism does. But what you don’t have is the human right to any particular MEANS of self-defense. Nowhere in any discussion of human rights does it say that everybody regardless of background or intent is allowed access to any kind of weapon they choose. When I walk around my neighborhood at night, I carry my short katana more often than I do a gun, and it has saved my life more than once. Not just from people, but from the local wildlife.

        But as much as I love guns as machines, you’re dead wrong when you say that guns have ever, do now or will ever “save more lives than they’ve taken.” That’s like saying that the spear saved more mammoths than it killed, or cats save more birds than they eat. Firearms were originally designed as hand cannons for use on the battlefield…for offensive action, not defense. You can’t change the nature of a thing if that’s what it is.

        You will never find a statistic that says guns have “saved more lives than they’ve taken,” because the only time a gun will save your life when a blade won’t is when you’re facing another person with a gun. If nobody who had a gun ever shot anybody else who also had a gun, or anybody who didn’t have a gun, you’d be right. But people with guns DO shoot other people with guns, and they shoot people without guns. But people who don’t have guns don’t shoot anybody, because they don’t have guns. So that equation will never, ever balance in your argument’s favor.

        I love guns, but I’d melt down every one of them if they passed a law getting rid of every other. I’m not saying that will or should happen, but my fun hobby isn’t worth a single child’s death. Get comfortable with the fact that you love a machine of death, but accept it for what it is. A machine of death. It’ll never be anything but.

        • Terry Rogers

          I just wanted to say, sir, I applaud your post. And agree with it wholeheartedly. You summed up my sentiments far better than I could have.

        • KurtB

          Richard, since this article has legs going in many directions allow me to add: what would a world with no firearms be like? Would it prevent the big brutish miscreant from beating, raping and strangling to death the smaller weaker woman? Or would you have removed the one means of protection offered the victim?
          In reality firearms will never be eliminated from society.
          I’ve worked in the tool & die trade for 50 years. I could make you a lethal firearm in an afternoon. Give me adequate time to tool up and I could produce thousands of fully automatic weapons. Now I’m a law abiding citizen and wouldn’t do such a thing, but there are plenty of people with the necessary skills that would. And, their customers would be the criminal element.
          I don’t want to be in a world where only the law breakers are armed.

          • Richard Rowe

            @ Terry: Happy to be of service :)

            @ KurtB: You’re right, man…there’s a lot to think about with the gun issue, and neither extreme really makes sense. You can’t give everybody carte blanche to own any weapon they want, or we’d be living in a warzone. But you can’t completely de-legalize them either. England could get away with it because a) The population and landmass are a lot smaller and easier to police, b) They didn’t already have 70 trillion guns floating around the population. That genie has been out of the bottle since Samuel Colt.

            So, I totally agree…we created this monster, we gave the lambs and wolves alike teeth, and it’s not fair to turn around and take those teeth back from the lambs. I mean, I prefer my blades, because they never jam, misfire or run out of ammo…but I understand why that might not work for everybody lol.

            But there has to be some middle ground here between allowing women to carry Derringers for equalization purposes and allowing psychos to get a hold of AK-47s and drum clips. Personally, I don’t see much wrong with Chris Rock’s plan of taxing $5,000 a bullet…though I would amend that that should only apply to ammunition commonly used in assault weapons, excepting shotgun rounds, 30-06 and .22 long and shorts. That way people could still hunt, target shoot and protect their homes with shotguns, and convert existing weapons for those purposes. Wouldn’t completely solve the problem, but I’d bet my life it would cut firearms deaths down by about 8/10ths.

          • Richard Rowe

            And, PS: That’s coming from somebody who’s been shot a few times…the first of which being when he accidentally shot himself in the leg at 2 years old. Accidents happen.

      • https://www.facebook.com/tim.leonard.374 Tim Leonard

        I’ll bet access to firearms has killed more children than have been saved.

        • YazminEv

          if even one has been saved, i havent heard yet-

      • http://gravatar.com/theliberalbuzz Buzz

        Sorry total bullshit about more lives saved than killed by a huge amount.

  • Sean

    “Lucid” is clearly a relative term. Any judge with two brain cells to rub together is going to stare at this creature’s lawyers, say “Are you out of your goddamn minds” and set their motion on fire, no-smoking laws be damned.

    • radworks

      Problem with that is finding a judge with two brain cells to rub together.

      • https://www.facebook.com/fran.seragusa Fran Fiore Seragusa

        Yes you are correct, we are talking about Florida…

      • G.I.

        radworks: That’s going to as difficult as finding a competent prosecutor.and a jury that also has at least two brain cells to rub together. Just look at the Zimmerman case.

  • https://www.facebook.com/Finistre Scott Bennett

    Zimmerman´s defense actually did NOT use the Stand Your Ground defense because they felt that they didn´t have a chance of surviving a prosecution attack on that theory. Instead they went with the more traditional self-defense claim, positing that Martin attacked Zimmerman and that he was simply defending himself, afraid for his own life. A more solid defense theory, legal-wise. I think that we will likely see Woodward behind bars before winter´s end.

    • Richard Rowe

      I’d imagine you’re right. I apologize, I should have been clearer; you’re right in saying that Zimmerman’s defense didn’t actually use SYG. I was referring to the fact that, at the time, Zimmerman himself (like this guy) felt that they had the legal right to murder because of SYG.

      • http://gravatar.com/thebad300 dfissell

        no Zimmerman felt he had the right to defend his self from being beat to death and or shot with his own gun

        • https://www.facebook.com/fran.seragusa Fran Fiore Seragusa

          Oh, yea, thats right…the gun that was tucked in the back of his pants, that he was laying on as TM was pounding his head on the concrete…my children have had more damage done falling from a bike…please…Zimmerman is do his Krama…it be coming…

    • G.I.

      dfissell: Zimmerman has a right to defend himself???? From what exactly?????? Was it from the kid running FROM him??? You mean the one who Zimmerman targeted and was even told by the 911 operator to back off??? You must be one those people that need to be thinned from the herd.

  • Greg

    Sorry Richard, but you are WAY overreaching. Neither defense will stand:

    1) States reserve sovereign powers unto themselves as the protecting power of the nation that individual citizens will NEVER have. That includes the power of pre-emptive strike warfare against a defined threat.

    2) The SYG law ONLY applies when the situation is direct and immediate. If the three dead people had been surrounding the guy AT THAT MOMENT making threats he would have a reason to invoke SYG (maybe). Against general threats with no immediate risk of them being carried out?

    Not going to work.

    I’ll also add that you can find some loony somewhere who thinks just about ANY fool thing…that doesn’t mean “America has gone crazy”.

    • VinaigretteGirl

      Greg, although it is true that there have been equally stupid/lunatic murderers, it is … unusual that such folk cite Presidential policy as justification for their murders; the Zimmerman trial made a mockery of sane laws against murder, as the later, post-trial words of jurors made clear. I hope, as probably we all do, that this man is convicted and jailed for a very, very long time, but the truth is that in Florida he might not be. This is, after all, the same state that has jailed a black woman for firing a single shot into the ceiling of the room in which she was being assaulted and battered by a man of strength and height superior to hers. We live in very bad times.

      • Richard Rowe

        @ Vinaigrette: Thanks much :) Couldn’t have said it better myself. Greg, the point here isn’t about whether or not the defenses will actually stand. You’re probably right…there’s a 99.9% chance they’ll get immediately shot down. The point is that not just he, but his LAWYERS, would agree that he has legal precedent for this at all. Just the fact he could even make an argument for being legally allowed to do this, the fact that he HAS a 0.1% chance of getting away with it, shows what mind of mockery our “justice” system has become.

        I’ll admit, I was on the fence about SYG, even after Zimmerman. But now, I can admit I was wrong, and those protesters upstate were absolutely right. It CAN (and now HAS been) used as carte blanche justification for public murder. The fact that Zimmerman walked clearly sent a message about the law’s perspective on public execution. It’s like they’re deliberately trying to turn my front yard into a corporate-run warzone. Not that I mind…I love Detroit. I’ve got guns, too. But this is America…not some third-world hellhole. Yet. We don’t DO this here. Yet.

        • Samaj

          Ken the wanna be ganster as you called him was just 2 weeks into his 17th year. He was a child. He was scared because some creep was following him for no reason. An adult male should not be allowed to pursue our children with a loaded gun. The law that you love is not right. I’ll save my other insults because I believe you already know that you’re an Idiot.

          • http://gravatar.com/johnf4303 John Frazer

            He was old enough to join the military with parent’s permission. Another 10 months he wouldn’t even need that.
            He was into cooking up dangerous drugs with the side effect of paranoia and aggression, and it so happens he was carrying two of the 3 specific ingredients needed for it…
            He was into fighting for fun, and evidently thought this would be a good opportunity.
            After breaking off initial sighting contact, he didn’t continue on home, but went out of his way to double back and ambush and confront the follower, jumped him, and mercilessly pounded him with no provocation for violence.

          • ROCK

            So M was suppose to tuck tail and run home rather than stand his ground after being stalked, and feeling threaten. Only scared Caucasian, have a right to SYG in Fla. If a grown azz man were to follow me and I did not know him I would probably turn on the hunter too. I am not going to let another man run me off, he had better have a posy with him. I don’t consider myself as bad or thuggish, I do have rights, I can walk the streets 24/7 and should not expect to be followed or profiled. AND THE ONLY SOMEONE THAT HAS A RIGHT TO STOP ME, QUESTION ME IS THE POLICE.AFTER HE/SHE IDENTIFY THEMSELVES.

          • ROCK

            If the police had been allowed to do their job, they would have allowed TM to continue on his merry way after he explained to them that he was just minutes away from home. Only two people know what happened on that night, one is dead, so the one standing can say anything he wants. z had smart lawyers, justice in America is based on what you can afford and gun people came to his defense. Z had no right to stalk, question, or stop TM. If a black man had stalked, stopped, questioned someone, that person could have claimed he/she felt threaten and used deadly force (SYG). But M could not use SYG because he did not have a weapon other than his hands. Now if he had turned and shot Z, would he have been justified? After all he could have felt threaten by a grown azz man. The story told by Z could have been a lie, in Fla who ever survives can fabricate any story they want. The kid just simply could have gotten the better of Z, Z just could not handle him as he thought, the kid was winning the fight. You ever initiated something and wish you hadn’t, that is where Z found himself. Me I would be shamed if I allowed a 17yo to whip my azz, first of all if the kid was abnormally large I would not have approached him, followed him looking for a opportunity to stop him, Yes the kid died, and to some it was a victory for their side, but it was a sad commentary on Fla’s society/law makers.

      • joe schultz

        For one that woman got away from her attacker and decided it was safe enough to go back into the house with a gun to get the keys to her car. The shot she fired was towards the childrens bedroom as well. Im tired of people using this woman in arguments. Im sorry if you are so afraid of bodily damage from someone than why go back into a house with that person once youve gotten away from that person. She was guilty. The prison sentence was harsh that ill agree with but she had been offered a plea deal but refused it and the judge had to give that because of what the law says. Even the judge said this at the trial.

Scroll To Top
website security Website Security Test