Florida man kills unarmed door-to-door salesman

[Theodon]

Maybe he realized he isnt stable and put up those no trespassing signs to protect and warn people not to step on his property.

If the salesmen never stepped on his property would he be alive today? Time to start giving some accountability to everyone involved.

Yes it's the salesmans fault for not realising that "no trespassing" actually meant "I'm insane and I have 14 guns, and I will kill you for doing your job" though the sign would have to be bigger and you would probably get shot while reading it.

Your need to justify this mans actions are getting amazingly desperate.

[Vanyali]

Maybe he realized he isnt stable and put up those no trespassing signs to protect and warn people not to step on his property.

If the salesmen never stepped on his property would he be alive today? Time to start giving some accountability to everyone involved.

If he realized he wasn't stable he shouldn't carry a gun with him.

Your situation makes it worse for him, as he had a concealed permit, meaning if he knew he was unstable he could have "snapped" out in public with the gun.

[Palmatum]

Maybe he realized he isnt stable and put up those no trespassing signs to protect and warn people not to step on his property.

If the salesmen never stepped on his property would he be alive today? Time to start giving some accountability to everyone involved.

In which case he should have surrendered his firearms to authorities and seeked medical help, which, in turn, would have stopped him buying firearms legally again until he was cleared for his 'instability'.

[Exauras]

If a person withdraws from physical contact, stand your ground is void. The salesman also never showed threat of force, which is another requirement. Seeing as there was a witness as well who clearly says the salesman was non-confrontational, he'll get charged with probably second degree murder, although they'll go for first, but I don't know if they'll prove premeditation.

With regards to no trespassing signs, just having a sign that says "No trespassing" isn't enough. In Florida, its not trespassing if you don't know who the land belongs to. The sign must have the property owner's name (pretty common in a lot of states). Also in Florida, signs must warn of any danger associated with trespassing. So in either case, the old man was in the wrong and had a misguided image of what he believed was in his right to do.

And before it comes up, if threat of force wasn't a requirement, you could shoot anyone that looked at you wrong for fear that they might shoot you first.

[NeonX]

Maybe he realized he isnt stable and put up those no trespassing signs to protect and warn people not to step on his property.

If the salesmen never stepped on his property would he be alive today? Time to start giving some accountability to everyone involved.

If he had such a realisation and wanted to protect people he would have sought professional help and realised he can't trust himself around guns.

This is quite the ridiculous suggestion though.

[Khanjin]

Of course that idiot deserves a severe punishment. But to be fair, after so many news reports from Florida I have a hard time feeling sorry for anyone living there anymore. You have the option to move from that state, and people still choose to stay. I wouldn't live there for anything. It'd be an everyday gamble, people might eat your face or shoot you any day. :I

[chadwix]

Yes it's the salesmans fault for not realising that "no trespassing" actually meant "I'm insane and I have 14 guns, and I will kill you for doing your job" though the sign would have to be bigger and you would probably get shot while reading it.

Your need to justify this mans actions are getting amazingly desperate.

Who is the salesmen to define what "no trespassing" means on property other than his? No means no, just like in the rape cases. If it says no trespassing you dont go on the property without surrendering your rights.

And you say im desperate when your not exercising common sense

[Spectral]

Who is the salesmen to define what "no trespassing" means on property other than his?

He didn't. The law does that already, and it doesn't grant the right to gun someone down.

[smelltheglove]

florida law regarding guns:

rule 1: cardio

rule 2: double tap

...

[Theodon]

Who is the salesmen to define what "no trespassing" means on property other than his? No means no, just like in the rape cases. If it says no trespassing you dont go on the property without surrendering your rights.

And you say im desperate when your not exercising common sense

I have a feeling that your version of common sense is something I'm incapable of using, thankfully. You're points have been argued down many times in this thread and yet you still use the same justifications, just worded differently. Are you now saying that breaking the law revokes a persons right to live?

And as Spectral stated, the law defines what "no trespassing" means, not the salesman or the man putting up the signs. It doesn't mean you can kill a person for trespassing if they don't pose a real threat, and nothing about the situation constituted a threat to any sane person.

And before you pull the Castle Doctrine reasoning again, it can only be used when there is a real threat of physical harm or death. Witnesses have stated that the salesman displayed no threatening behaviour before the first shot and the second one was done when he couldn't even defend himself, let alone attack the gun owner, and therefore the Castle Doctrine doesn't apply here.

[Deleted]

Who is the salesmen to define what "no trespassing" means on property other than his? No means no, just like in the rape cases. If it says no trespassing you dont go on the property without surrendering your rights.

And you say im desperate when your not exercising common sense

Well you just said it... How is he to know? if the sign doesn't clearly state what the consequences of trespassing are, how is he suppose to know? And since that couldn't possible be the case here to anyone but the owner, the sign was lacking information.

I can't have a sign that says - no! - and kill anyone that i see, because to me the meaning of a sign that says - no! - equals that i can kill them if they are close enough to read the sign.

[chadwix]

He didn't. The law does that already, and it doesn't grant the right to gun someone down.

Some would argue in florida it does. The law says what it does and its now up to the judge to interpret it.

The shot to the head will be tough to defend but ive seen worse get away.

"Well you just said it... How is he to know? "

No means no, its pretty clear. Do you also ignore warning labels on medications and power tools?

[Spectral]

Some would argue in florida it does.

Some people are ignorant enough to argue just about anything. That's not actually an argument though.

[Deleted]

We have something in Canada call the Mailbox, where everyone on a street can walk to and get their mail with a key issued by the postal service. The funny thing is that there are still parts of my city that don't have mail boxes and the post office delivers them door to door.

What you got mailboxes with a lock on them atleast in scandinavia we can trust our neigbours enough to have it standing in the middle of the street WITHOUT being lockt. weird ? maybe ppl in other countrys need to learn the diffrence btw yours and my loot

[chadwix]

Some people are ignorant enough to argue just about anything. That's not actually an argument though.

The state laws in the book would disagree with you. Im sure living in DC you have brushed up on florida law and arent just talking out of your butt

[Vanyali]

The state laws in the book would disagree with you. Im sure living in DC you have brushed up on florida law and arent just talking out of your butt

You mean the part of the law that says you have to prove that there was a threat and danger to you if you use lethal force? Because that's part of the law, and definitely wasn't the case in this situation.

[Spectral]

The state laws in the book would disagree with you. Im sure living in DC you have brushed up on florida law and arent just talking out of your butt

I'm absolutely, unequivocally, 100% sure that posting a No Trespassing sign does not give you the right to gun down anyone that sets foot on your property. There's absolutely zero question whatsoever about this.

[Carp The Fish]

Let me just start off by saying the shooting was not justified; it never is.

However, my town (yes I live in Cape Coral) is bordering one of the most violent towns in the country, Fort Myers. There is a real gang and drug problem in the youth of my town. That man has every right to be paranoid.
Furthermore, he had every right to be carrying the gun he had on him that night (as long as he had the concealed carry permit, of course). In fact, there is a law in my state to make sure that people who have a concealed carry-certified gun have the right to shoot that weapon when they feel their life is in immediate danger.

If the man had lived long enough to give some sort of real testimony as to why he was there that night (I guarantee you it had nothing to do with door-to-door salesmanship; those don't exist in my town), maybe the case could be made for "Stand your ground".
But that second shot he put into the back of the victim's head tells me the shooter had no right to do what he did.

[chadwix]

You mean the part of the law that says you have to prove that there was a threat and danger to you if you use lethal force? Because that's part of the law, and definitely wasn't the case in this situation.

"Roop later told police that he shot Rainey in the head “for effect” and that he had three no trespassing signs on his property. Roop said he feared for his life."

Im taking his word over yours, he was actually there...

[darkwarrior42]

The state laws in the book would disagree with you. Im sure living in DC you have brushed up on florida law and arent just talking out of your butt

I'm curious... are you saying he *should* have the right to kill anyone who walks onto his property, or are you merely arguing that the law might give him that ability right now?

I'm active duty military, I'm pro-gun ownership, my father was an army ranger and he was attacked in his home by a burgler who would have killed my father had my father not been armed and trained in how to shoot first (said burgler had already robbed three other homes in the area and killed anyone he found inside)... and I say that this guy in Florida has no business owning a gun, and that what he did was murder and not in any way justified. Signs on your lawn shouldn't be a free license to do whatever you want to people that walk onto your property.

The fact that this guy had 14 guns and a concealed carry permit despite obvious mental issues is a problem in and of itself. If the courts side with him, that's just a good reason never to live in Florida... self defense and the defense of others and your property is fine (and something I support), but require that there be an actual threat, not an imagined or theoretical one.