The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2001
- Messages
- 53,097
If only someone had seen him pull out a gun and said "Hey Jude, don't make it bad", this whole thing could have been avoided.
Daniel Adkins case
- Thread starter Draca
- Start date
If only someone had seen him pull out a gun and said "Hey Jude, don't make it bad", this whole thing could have been avoided.
The Central Scrutinizer
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2001
- Messages
- 53,097
Maybe for the same reason you haven't been arrested. The police don't arrest people unless they think they, in consultation with the DA, have enough evidence to obtain a conviction.
As much as I hate to say this (sort of), being a gun owner and supporting stand your ground laws (and open carry laws), while I do not know enough about what happened (and what evidence (the real kind) is available to the police I know I would not shoot someone until I could see they were pulling a clearly identifiable weapon. But that is not quite what the laws say - also, the way Florida law (moving to the TW case) used to work-the booklets they sent us explained that getting hit a couple of times did not justify shooting - so you would be looking at a likely trial if you did that. BUT the police will likely arrest when someone in the DA's office tells them they have enough hard/convincing evidence to have a very good chance of winning in court.
That evidence may just not be there.
This is where I stand. I really cant imagine shooting someone in the situation presented by the media. I hope either one of two things occurs. Evidence of some kind of attack is just not being presented by the media, or this guy gets arrested and convicted.
Draca
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 9, 2010
- Messages
- 1,222
The shooter takes Daniel Adkins life and doesn't even have to face an accounting in court? What is messed up here is that Cordell Jude should have to prove he had reasonable grounds to kill someone for self defense. The State shouldn't have to prove that he didn't have grounds. That may not be how the Make My Day law works, but it is extremely disturbing that an arrest has not been made almost 2 months later in this case.
What evidence is there that Daniel Adkins was a threat? There is no weapon, no damage to his car, there is nothing. It is not justice for a family to lose a member of their family, for a man to lose his life and the shooter doesn't pay for their crime, giving the unproven reason that the person killed posed a threat to them. This in not justice.
Does the SYG laws really give more rights to a person not to feel threatened then for someone else not to be killed?
Last edited:
Draca
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 9, 2010
- Messages
- 1,222
What do the police need evidence of? They have proof that someone was shot dead. Why doesn't the shooter have to prove in court that he had lawful reasons to do that?
Draca
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 9, 2010
- Messages
- 1,222
I agree. Justice can't just let someone be killed unjustifiably. There needs to be accountability to the person that lost their life.
A crime.
That's close. Now they just have to get evidence on who did the shooting and if the act violated a law.
Because - as the single, core feature of our justice system - a person suspected of a crime does not have to prove his innocence. The government has to prove his actions were unlawful. It's the same reason that you don't have to prove you didn't shoot Mr. Adkins.
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
From a legal standpoint, no matter what crime is alleged, it's up to the prosecuter to:
1) Prove a crime has been committed.
2) Prove the accused committed the act.
No individual can be compelled to apear in court and prove they didn't commit a criminal act - the Fifth Amendment - it's the job of the defense to disprove the prosecuter's case against their client.
Draca
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 9, 2010
- Messages
- 1,222
A man has been shot dead. That should be a crime unless proven otherwise. The shooter imo should have to prove it was a justifiable murder.
The person who did the shooting in not in dispute. They fully admitted to doing the shooting. The State imo should be defending the rights of the murdered person. They had a right to their own life. If someone takes that right away they should have to prove they had reason. Cordell Jude is claiming SYG, MMD, reasons. He should have to prove those reasons. This is completey messed up that a man is dead and the shooter can claim be frightened by a dog leash as a reason to take someone's life.
I disagree. He DID murder someone. At this point he should have to prove he did so lawfully. He absolutely should have to prove his innocence after killing someone. The State imo should be taking the side of the person who had the right NOT to be killed. I agree that the government has to prove his actions were unlawful. The government should do that by prosecuting him in a court of law.
Last edited:
Draca
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 9, 2010
- Messages
- 1,222
1) A man has been murdered.
2) They know who did it.
They already know he murdered someone. That is a crime. The state should be prosecuting him under the law and he of course has the right to defend himself in court. Daniel Adkins has rights also. Cordell Jude took away all of them.
The more I learn about these stand your ground laws the more I am becoming against them. It is unbelievable to me that there is even a question whether this man should be arrested or not based on the story given so far.
Last edited:
Draca
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- May 9, 2010
- Messages
- 1,222
Are you saying Cordell Jude has a licence to kill similar to a pharmacists licence to distribute drugs or a car title to show proof of purchase?
Is that what SYG laws are? A licence to get away with murder? Putting the state in the position of proving that murdering someone was NOT justifiable. That quite frankly is ridiculous. How about starting with murdering someone is ghastly crime and make people prove they had a legitimate reason for deadly force. These SYG laws are reversing accountability.
Are you saying Cordell Jude has a licence to kill similar to a pharmacists licence to distribute drugs or a car title to show proof of purchase?
Yes.
No. There is a difference between kill and murder. One is neccessarily a crime. The other is not.
Yes. That's what they have to do, prove that a crime was committed.
No. It's a core freedom.
I'm confused. How can you claim it was murder without actual proof? I mean, do we convict on your sense of emotion alone or do we do some sort of opinion poll on the matter. Maybe we should construct some framework where the government claims a crime is committed and then we could set up a series of tests to see if the government's claims are valid and then proceed. That would be cool.
No. The government has always been under the same burden.
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
Bolded: They know that an individual has been killed.
Whether or not it will be determined to be murder has not yet been decided by the prosecuters office.
Let me relate an anecdote.
There was dashboard camera footage from a LEA that showed an officer pull up the vehicle behind a pedestrian walking away from the patrol vehicle - the officer immediately opened fire on the pedestrian, shooting him in the back.
Horrible! officer kills innocent pedestrian w/o cause!
Until you see the camera footage from the first patrol vehicle on the scene, that showed the pedestrian firing at the officer in that first vehicle, hitting the officer and then calmly turning his back and walking away.
Until the whole story is laid out, take the "facts" with a grain of salt.
BStrong
Penultimate Amazing
Are you saying Cordell Jude has a licence to kill similar to a pharmacists licence to distribute drugs or a car title to show proof of purchase?
Is that what SYG laws are? A licence to get away with murder? Putting the state in the position of proving that murdering someone was NOT justifiable. That quite frankly is ridiculous. How about starting with murdering someone is ghastly crime and make people prove they had a legitimate reason for deadly force. These SYG laws are reversing accountability.
Are you unaware of the difference between justifiable homicide, manslaughter and murder?
The taking of life can be determined by prosecuters and investigators to be any of those three general definitions.
If an individual is known to be the actor in the incident, the law enforcement agency jurisdiction where the incident took place will collect evidence, present same to the prosecuter, who will then present that evidence to the grand jury, who will either indict, or not (no-bill)
SYG doesn't change any of that.
No individual can be legally compelled to testify against themselves, so your assertions to the contrary that "murder" is somehow different and SYG is the cause is incorrect.
Last edited:
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2006
- Messages
- 54,545
Yep as a tard with a dog he had it coming.
Wow what a messed up thing to say!
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 21,203
Well he was, he shouldn't have yelled at someone while holding a dog leash.
I've learned so much about life here. It's permissable to attack and beat up people for following you, and to shoot them for yelling at you while holding a dog leash. Sort of glad that things don't work this way over here.
Ohh, yea . . . sure . . . I learn lots of things from hyperbole, just not facts about life, more about those that use it and misrepresent others opinions.