Florida Man Kills Steak & Seafood Salesman

[Pendleton]

So I find this actually a little more disturbing than the Aurora shooting recently. It seems Florida isn't helping itself this year with the kneejerk shooting image. A guy who finds himself in fear of people hawking their wares? How did this guy get to own a BB gun with such supposedly stringent laws in place, let alone have CCW permit?

[Thanas]

what a coward.

[Pendleton]

I can only assume some mental difficulties. One does not pull up to an unarmed man in daylight and execute him in plain sight, then rationalise it as being an act of self-defence.

[Gil Hamilton]

We'll see if arresting him actually sticks in Florida nowadays.

[General Mung Beans]

We'll see if arresting him actually sticks in Florida nowadays.

He's already been charged anyways.

[Alyeska]

So I find this actually a little more disturbing than the Aurora shooting recently. It seems Florida isn't helping itself this year with the kneejerk shooting image. A guy who finds himself in fear of people hawking their wares? How did this guy get to own a BB gun with such supposedly stringent laws in place, let alone have CCW permit?

Would you mind posting the article in the thread? Not all of us can view the link from work.

[Executor32]

Florida man kills door-to-door salesman: I’ll kill anybody that steps on my property

By Eric W. Dolan
Thursday, July 26, 2012 20:31 EDT

A man in Cape Coral, Florida on Wednesday was arrested for shooting and killing an unarmed door-to-door salesman on his property.

Kenneth Bailey Roop, 52, has been charged with second-degree murder for killing 30-year-old Nicholas Rainey.

A co-worker who witnessed the shooting said Rainey had knocked on Roop’s door, but received no answer. While Rainey was walking down the drive-way, Roop pulled up in his pickup truck and asked why Rainey was at his house. Rainey explained that he was selling steak and seafood. The witness said Roop then pulled out a black handgun and shot Rainey. As Rainey lay on the ground, Roop fired another bullet into the back of his head.

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.

“I’m not going to give him the chance to do something to me,” he told police. “I was in fear.”

An off-duty Collier County sheriff’s deputy was nearby and heard the gunshots. When she arrived at Roop’s property, she found Rainey dying on the ground while Roop was in his garage reloading his handgun.

“He was telling the officer, ‘he stepped on my property, he trespassed, I’ll kill anybody that steps on my property,’ somewhere along them lines. It was just unbelievable,” one witness told the The News-Press. “She never flinched. She deserves a medal. I don’t think he was done [shooting].”

The deputy ordered Roop to drop his weapon and held him at gunpoint until police officers arrived.

Roop’s neighbors described him as “the neighborhood crazy.” Roop has a concealed weapons permit and approximately 14 firearms.

[Alyeska]

Holy shit that man is fucked up. Throw the book at the fucker.

[Pendleton]

Would you mind posting the article in the thread? Not all of us can view the link from work.

That's copyright infringement, I'm afraid. I've already been on one forum that got people banned for that after one particularly savvy publisher got wind of it.

[Simon_Jester]

We'll see if arresting him actually sticks in Florida nowadays.

IF the version of the story I'm seeing so far is accurate, I bet it will.

The part that's absolutely beyond the pale here is that he went and shot the salesman in the head again when the salesmen went down. There is no way in hell you can call that "self defense."

What's making the Zimmerman case shaky is that there's at least some evidence of a struggle, which makes it hard to dismiss Zimmerman's story ("he flipped out and attacked me with his bare hands") credible. Here, from the sound of it there isn't going to be any such evidence, and even if there was it can't be used to justify blowing someone's brains out after you've already put a hole in them and left them bleeding on the ground.


I'm sorry if you think it is, but "castle laws" really are not the same thing as "license to murder anyone who comes to your front door."

[Executor32]

Would you mind posting the article in the thread? Not all of us can view the link from work.

That's copyright infringement, I'm afraid. I've already been on one forum that got people banned for that after one particularly savvy publisher got wind of it.

That's fair use, I'm afraid.

[Simon_Jester]

Everyone's paranoid about copyright these days...

What, exactly, did that other guy get banned for reposting, Pendleton?

[Surlethe]

Keep the discussion on-topic and let the moderating staff handle potential copyright infringement. If you have concerns, PM your favorite moderator.

[RogueIce]

How did this guy get to own a BB gun with such supposedly stringent laws in place, let alone have CCW permit?

Has he ever been convicted of a felony? Ever diagnosed with something serious (I don't know offhand what would be "serious" enough to prevent a gun purchase in FL, sorry) by a mental health professional? If the answer to those questions is no, there's your answer.

Shockingly enough, gun store owners and the CCW people are not mind readers and cannot tell just by looking at somebody that he may be crazy.

[Gil Hamilton]

I'm sorry if you think it is, but "castle laws" really are not the same thing as "license to murder anyone who comes to your front door."

What about Yoshihiro Hattori?

[Isolder74]

I’ll kill anybody that steps on my property
“He was telling the officer, ‘he stepped on my property, he trespassed, I’ll kill anybody that steps on my property,’ somewhere along them lines. It was just unbelievable,” one witness told the The News-Press. “She never flinched. She deserves a medal. I don’t think he was done [shooting].”

Wow Children cartoons aren't suppose to be a life goal! I hope they throw the book at him. That was outright cold-blooded!

[Simon_Jester]

I'm sorry if you think it is, but "castle laws" really are not the same thing as "license to murder anyone who comes to your front door."

What about Yoshihiro Hattori?

Well what about him? For one, similar laws have been on very shaky ground when people try to use them to excuse the killing of an unarmed man. Sometimes the "I felt threatened" defense works, sometimes it doesn't; it's not a 'get out of jail free' card.

And it's damn sure that if Peairs had shot Hattori again in the head, to make sure he died, his defense wouldn't have had a legal leg to stand on. Which was my original point: if you look at what the law actually says and not some random guy's paranoid delusions, there are acts of violence you can't commit even in self-defense, no matter how broad the state is in allowing you to claim self-defense.

In this case, the shooter crossed that line very blatantly.

[Pendleton]

That's fair use, I'm afraid.

No, it's not. And I've noticed this going on on the forum quite a bit. Fair use is giving a link to the original and a less than 20% excerpt of the original text, or, a brief summation. Denying the original author site a hit and reproducing without consent IS infringement, or show me otherwise. I will, of course, bring this up with the staff. But it is serious enough to be looked into. 

Has he ever been convicted of a felony?  Ever diagnosed with something serious (I don't know offhand what would be "serious" enough to prevent a gun purchase in FL, sorry) by a mental health professional?  If the answer to those questions is no, there's your answer.

Shockingly enough, gun store owners and the CCW people are not mind readers and cannot tell just by looking at somebody that he may be crazy.

Do unfulfilled potential executions of house callers count?

http://www.wtsp.com/news/article/265739 ... -time-bomb

[Beowulf]

Getting a bit off topic, if any N&P mods want to split the tangent, but:

A federal judge ruled Monday that publishing an entire article without the rights holder’s authorization was a fair use of the work, in yet another blow to newspaper copyright troll Righthaven.

It’s not often that republishing an entire work without permission is deemed fair use. Fair use is an infringement defense when the defendant reproduced a copyrighted work for purposes such as criticism, commentary, teaching and research. The defense is analyzed on a case-by-case basis.

Monday’s ruling dismissed a lawsuit brought by Righthaven, a Las Vegas-based copyright litigation factory jointly owned with newspaper publisher Stephens Media. The venture’s litigation tactics and ethics are being questioned by several judges and attorneys, a factor that also weighed in on U.S. District Judge Philip Pro’s decision Monday.

Righthaven has sued more than 200 websites, bloggers and commenters for copyright infringement. More than 100 have settled out of court.

The lawsuit decided Monday targeted Wayne Hoehn, a Vietnam veteran who posted all 19 paragraphs of November editorial from the Las Vegas Review-Journal, which is owned by Stephens Media. Hoehn posted the article, and its headline, “Public Employee Pensions: We Can’t Afford Them” on medjacksports.com to prompt discussion about the financial affairs of the nation’s states. Hoehn was a user of the site, not an employee.

Righthaven sought up to $150,000, the maximum in damages allowed under the Copyright Act. Righthaven argued that the November posting reduced the number of eyeballs that would have visited the Review-Journal site to read the editorial.

“Righthaven did not present any evidence that the market for the work was harmed by Hoehn’s noncommercial use for the 40 days it appeared on the website. Accordingly, there is no genuine issue of material fact that Hoehn’s use of the work was fair and summary judgment is appropriate,” Judge Pro ruled.

Marc Randazza, one of Hoehn’s attorneys, said he would petition the judge for legal fees and costs.

The judge also said he took into consideration that only five of the editorial’s paragraphs were “purely creative opinions” of the author.

“While the work does have some creative or editorial elements, these elements are not enough to consider the work a purely ‘creative work’ in the realm of fictional stories, song lyrics, or Barbie dolls,” he wrote. “Accordingly, the work is not within ‘the core of intended copyright protection.’”

Judge Pro, in his fair-use analysis, also found that the posting was for noncommercial purposes, and was part of an “online discussion.”

That said, Pro did not need to decide the fair-use question.

That’s because he also found that Righthaven did not have legal standing to bring the lawsuit, a hot-button topic in the Righthaven litigation.


Pro’s decision came a week after a different Las Vegas federal judge threatened to sanction Righthaven, calling its litigation efforts “disingenuous, if not outright deceitful” when it came to standing. Standing is a legal concept that has enabled Righthaven to bring lawsuits on behalf of the copyrights owned by Stephens Media.

That blistering decision by U.S. District Judge Roger Hunt, the chief judge in Nevada, places into doubt Righthaven’s year-old business model, which is also under a Colorado federal judge’s microscope.

Hunt gave Righthaven two weeks to explain why he should not sanction it for trying to “manufacture standing.” Judge Hunt suggested Righthaven never had standing in any of its cases because Righthaven and Stephens Media had agreed to share the proceeds of any damages awards or settlements, yet Stephens Media kept ownership of the copyright.

Righthaven must own the copyright to sue on its behalf, Hunt ruled in a decision echoed by Judge Pro on Monday.

What’s more, in each of the 200-plus cases Righthaven brought on behalf of Las Vegas Review-Journal articles, Righthaven never disclosed, as required, that Stephens Media had a “pecuniary interest” in the outcome, Hunt wrote.

Many bloggers who settled are mulling their legal options.

[Serafina]

So basically, because a news article is not a purely fictional or artistic work and reports on real-life issues, citing it for the purpose of discussion is fair use.

[Pendleton]

I'm going to use that on another forum/blog. They've been citing the last suit recently (five sentences of a 50 sentence piece, IIRC). Should make posting articles easier.

And back on topic, don't states have any instances of denying a person a firearms licence after a stunt like the one this guy pulled several years back?

[Beowulf]

He wasn't found guilty of pointing the gun at a meter-reader. You can't take guns away from someone just because they got arrested in the past. Only convictions count. For his concealed carry license, the eligibility requirements are similar to being able to own a firearm. Which is to say, not a felon, not convicted of domestic violence, and not committed to an institution. There's a couple more, but none of those disqualifying conditions apply to him yet.

[Zaune]

Has he ever been convicted of a felony? Ever diagnosed with something serious (I don't know offhand what would be "serious" enough to prevent a gun purchase in FL, sorry) by a mental health professional? If the answer to those questions is no, there's your answer.

Shockingly enough, gun store owners and the CCW people are not mind readers and cannot tell just by looking at somebody that he may be crazy.

That would be why obtaining a firearms certificate in Britain requires character references as well as a clean police record and a doctor's note to prove you've got no history of mental illness.

[RogueIce]

Do unfulfilled potential executions of house callers count?

http://www.wtsp.com/news/article/265739 ... -time-bomb

It's a misdemeanor charge, so if he'd been found guilty...maybe. I don't know if "Improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms" counts as a violent misdemeanor (legally, at least). But as your own article (and Beowulf) pointed out he was found not guilty anyway, so it wouldn't matter.

EDIT: And even if he was convicted and it was considered violent he'd only have to wait three years after the end of his sentence/probation/etc anyway.

That would be why obtaining a firearms certificate in Britain requires character references as well as a clean police record and a doctor's note to prove you've got no history of mental illness.

Good for Britain? Anyway not sure it would have made a difference. You'd have to clarify if "clean police record" means never arrested ever or simply never convicted.

As far as character references and doctor's note, well, it's impossible to say but I don't see why he couldn't have gotten both. He may have been a jerk and 'nut job' around his neighborhood but to his friends (whoever they may be) and a doctor who he'd know to be evaluating him?

[Sarevok]

What is wrong Florida ? Why do so many of these news stories involving gun violence and police misconduct come out of that state ?

Enlighten me, I have been in America like only once for just few months.