Panthers' prospect nearly gets his head blowed off.

[juliansteed]

Well now that depends.... I'm not so sure that shooting an uninvited drunk man in your home at a late hour of the night would constitute 2nd degree. Did you read the story?

"An AHLer is lucky to be alive after allegedly breaking into a San Antonio home in a drunken stupor early Monday morning before refusing to leave.

"My first instinct was to beat the hell out of him," Benjamin Garza, the home’s owner, told CBS affiliate KENS5 in San Antonio. "(He’s) lucky I wasn't here because I would've put a bullet between (his) eyes and it would've been over.”

According to police, San Antonio Rampage centre Scott Timmins was so intoxicated at the scene he was unable to hold his own balance.

The report states that when Garza’s wife awoke to find the 23-year-old from Hamilton, Ont., lounging on her coach, she asked his name.

“Don’t worry about that,” Timmins said, according to the report.

"(Timmins) was yelling, 'What are you doing in my house?!'" said Garza, who wasn’t home at the time of the alleged incident. "My wife said, 'You need to get the hell out of here.’”

Garza’s wife eventually fled with the couple's three kids before calling authorities.

Before being hauled off to jail, police say Timmins admitted to being out the night before with teammates at a local bar, but insisted he didn’t mean any harm to those in the home.

"He needs to pay for what he did,” Garza said of Timmins. “Traumatizing my family like that."

The Rampage, a Florida Panthers affiliate, didn’t respond when the station reached out for comment.

Timmins has 20 career NHL games with the Panthers, scoring once since being drafted 165th overall by the club in 2009."


I can't understand why the fact he was too drunk to stand isn't the big issue here..... He drove to that location???? He couldn't stand up??? He refused to leave & some of y'all want to make it about the father/husband making a statement that he did not even follow through with?

I never said he would be found guilty but he would most likely at least be charged (and probably found guilty). Nothing in that story suggests that anyone's lives were in danger. Maybe if he was present the husband would have felt differently, but he wasn't. So to say with such absolute certainty that he would have put a bullet in his head, after the fact is completely moronic. Nobody knows what would have happened had he been there. And I'll say it again, if he was there and actaully shot him in the heat of the moment I would be less critical of him than for making that statement after the fact when his family was safe. I respect a husband and father that will defend his family at all costs from any potential risk but hopes he never has to. Not some guy that publicly walks the line of uttering death threats after the fact once he knows his family is safe and were never in any real danger.

And no, I'm not condoning what Timmins did. It was no small thing. But the last time I checked, not everything fell under the category of petty/silly crime or such a crime that it justifies vigilante execution.

 

[juliansteed]

counterpoint

We do not know even in the slightest whether this was something guy said in an angry rage fit, or while calmly speaking with him afterwards after hearing about it, referring to the heat of the moment, sleepy, with a stranger in his house confronted by his wife.
The reader takes that to his or her own interpretation, as it is not clearly defined. The assumption is the former simply because the reporter used the term "facing", which can be taken as confrontational.
Fact of the matter is, we really don't know.
He could very well have been saying it off the cuff while talking with the guy after the fact, and we are ASSUMING he said it in a menacing/threatening way, as there is not context to go by except our own imaginations.


He did not, in fact, "simply" say he would put a bullet in his head "for passing out on his couch". That is your interpretation.

Mine is that he would have done so in the heat of the moment while firmly believing his family was in danger with a drunken stranger confronted by his wife who broke into his house in the middle of the night.
Slightly different point of view

That said, whether he said it in a menacing fit of rage while being help back by riot police, or simply in a "<phew>, thank goodness I wasn't there" conversation... I have no problem with this either way.

You do stupid drunk things, you take your chances.
I've done amazingly stupid drunk things, never once did I break into a strangers house in the middle of the night. Why? Simple. Might get shot. lol

I can agree with this for the most part. I think I also interpret the term "over-reation" differently, which may very well be the wrong interpretation of it. For me rage is a reason for an over-reaction, not an excuse for it. It's caused me to over-react (on a much lesser scale) more times than I care to admit. He may very well have said what he said in a moment of rage and regretted it later. We all do stupid things when we drink which is true, but we all over-react once in a while as well. The good news is, nobody got hurt here or it could have been an extremely unfortunate situation for a lot of people.

 

[Bizzle McDizzle]

When a cop pulls you over - they use every precaution in the world because they have absolutely no idea who you are or what you are capable of. they must at all times assume that you are the one guy that will try to shoot them as they approach the window.

To say no one was in danger is incredible hindsight.
That family was traumatized, they had NO idea if this was just some drunken loser as it turned out to be, or the guy who seems like a drunken loser that at any time can snap, kill the children, and r*pe the wife. So had he been home, I would have had no issue with him defending his family, and highly doubt any charges would be brought unless he walked up to the guy while he was sleeping and shot him in the head.

And vigilante execution is a quite, quite, quite, quite different thing that anything that actually is going on here, so lets not get into crazy hyperbole..
Had he said "You scared my family, my children have nightmares, so because of that, when you are out of jail, I will find you when you are alone and I will kill you" - THAT would be vigilante execution. quite different that what actually happened.

 

[Bizzle McDizzle]

I can agree with this for the most part. I think I also interpret the term "over-reation" differently, which may very well be the wrong interpretation of it. For me rage is a reason for an over-reaction, not an excuse for it. It's caused me to over-react (on a much lesser scale) more times than I care to admit. He may very well have said what he said in a moment of rage and regretted it later. We all do stupid things when we drink which is true, but we all over-react once in a while as well. The good news is, nobody got hurt here or it could have been an extremely unfortunate situation for a lot of people.

ok, we found something to agree on.

:cheers:

 

[juliansteed]

To say no one was in danger is incredible hindsight.

But that's pretty much been my main point all along. I criticized him for making the comment that he made, not for what he might have done had he been home. At the time he made the comment he had the benefit of hindsight. Although you are right that we don't know the context of when or how the comment was made.

If he actually was home and did shoot him I would neither defend him nor attack him (availability of details pending) because I wouldn't know what was going on when he did it. Perhaps he felt genuinely afraid for himself and/or his family, or maybe he was angry about damaged property, or perhaps he had just been waiting for a good excuse to use his gun.

Edit - Cheers indeed!

 

[beantownmaniac]

The thought of my wife (redhead) with guns is a scary thought... lol

I like you too much to reply with the smart-ass answer I'm thinking right now.

 

[BadMotoWeazal]

Since we are all being hypothetical I'll go with the husband wasn't home when it all went down, he's feeling angry & a little guilty that he was not there to protect his family. So his statement was to shoot the guy in the face, probably not the best tact, but in his situation I could understand.

For the record, if I shoot & I hope I never have to, I'll be shooting to kill with 1 bullet as dead men don't have a day in court & no way a trial lawyer can say I went to the extreme to kill..... I love my shotgun.

 

[BadMotoWeazal]

And I'm done with this topic & as always I respect all of yours.......

 

[juliansteed]

Since we are all being hypothetical I'll go with the husband wasn't home when it all went down, he's feeling angry & a little guilty that he was not there to protect his family. So his statement was to shoot the guy in the face, probably not the best tact, but in his situation I could understand.

For the record, if I shoot & I hope I never have to, I'll be shooting to kill with 1 bullet as dead men don't have a day in court & no way a trial lawyer can say I went to the extreme to kill..... I love my shotgun.

You're right. I was thinking of a case a few years ago where at least 2 (maybe 3?) guys entered a convenience store with guns and fired a few shots at the owner and his staff. The owner fired back. 1 guy got away and the other did not but no longer appeared to be a threat. The owner shot him dead and was charged (and convicted if I remember correctly" with murder. I figured if shooting a guy that entered your store and took shots at you was considered murder then certainly shooting an unarmed passed out drunk would be as well. The big difference other than the fact that 1 was armed and 1 wasn't, is that the convenience store incident was caught on the security camera. The prosecution and the jury didn't have to speculate what happened because they could see it. They just needed to determine whether or not it was justified. Here they would first have to determine what they believe happened, with the intruder being too dead to give his side, and then determine whether or not it was justified. So saying he would probably be found guilty was a leap on my part unless Groundskeeper Willie was nearby recording the whole thing. If I'm on that jury, I'm going to err on the side of the guy who was home minding his own business before any of this happened. I still say it's a process he is better off not having to go through though.

 

[forty_three]

The report states that when Garza’s wife awoke to find the 23-year-old from Hamilton, Ont., lounging on her coach, she asked his name.

“Don’t worry about that,” Timmins said, according to the report.

"(Timmins) was yelling, 'What are you doing in my house?!'" said Garza, who wasn’t home at the time of the alleged incident. "My wife said, 'You need to get the hell out of here.’”

Garza’s wife eventually fled with the couple's three kids before calling authorities.

Guess it's a good thing the Timmins guy didn't have a gun. Apparently he thought the lady was an intruder in his home.


And, just as a factual anecdote, I know of a case where an individual frequented gun forums, and often espoused his hero fantasies and posturing about how he'd shoot first and ask questions later. He even mentioned emotional attachment to his guns.

He was involved in a shooting on his own property and he was charged and convicted as the jury found that while he was in the right to protect his property, he clearly had been looking for such an event to happen and found that he did not exercise due care before unloading on the bad guy.

The bad guy survived, and sued. And got way more than he would stealing tools from the guy's barn...


Whatever your opinions are, someone will find them and take them out of context. So be careful. That's all I'm saying.