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.

 

Florida man kills door-to-door salesman: I

 

I don't necessarily think that THIS case will fall in the "Stand Your Ground" camp, but I think it is the proverbial "slippery slope".

No, I think that's a case of nutjob with a gun.

Nut job is right.

A VEGETARIAN NUTJOB PERHAPS ?

This guy, based on this report seems to be a nut job!

That is two incidents (this one and Martin) out of the 944,583 CCW permits in Florida this year that are at the least very very suspicious.

 

Wonder how gun crimes there have been by non-licensed Floridians?

I think the title is misleading. I don't see where this has anything to do with the Stand Your Ground law.

I think the title is misleading. I don't see where this has anything to do with the Stand Your Ground law.

 

That's why I said that in this case, I don't think "Stand your ground" applies, but could it be a slippery slope to situations such as this? "I felt threatened when this big man was on my porch...."

That's why I said that in this case, I don't think "Stand your ground" applies, but could it be a slippery slope to situations such as this? "I felt threatened when this big man was on my porch...."

 

...yammering away about the last bag of frozen shrimp on the truck.

That's why I said that in this case, I don't think "Stand your ground" applies, but could it be a slippery slope to situations such as this? "I felt threatened when this big man was on my porch...."

 

No.

No.

 

That disappoints me, 75. You are usually one that I can count on for discussion. If I am wayyyyyyyy off base here, you're one that I would have thought would have helped me "see the light."

That disappoints me, 75. You are usually one that I can count on for discussion. If I am wayyyyyyyy off base here, you're one that I would have thought would have helped me "see the light."

 

I'll try to help.

 

The SYG law is when you feel threatened. The nutjob took the time to ask the guy what he was doing, he explained he was simply selling stuff, and the idiot then proceeded to shoot him not once, but twice, including once in the back of the head. Once the salesman had explained his presence, there was no reasonable assumption of threat or danger to the murderer. No way does the SYG law even enter the conversation IMO. Just a cold-blooded psycho murderer.

I'll try to help.

 

The SYG law is when you feel threatened. The nutjob took the time to ask the guy what he was doing, he explained he was simply selling stuff, and the idiot then proceeded to shoot him not once, but twice, including once in the back of the head. Once the salesman had explained his presence, there was no reasonable assumption of threat or danger to the murderer. No way does the SYG law even enter the conversation IMO. Just a cold-blooded psycho murderer.

 

I understand THIS situation. Here is the scenario that I find "slippery".

 

"Jim" is a loose cannon. He's had a bad day. Salesman is on his property. Jim doesn't like it. Jim shoots him and the salesman dies.

 

Jim makes up an elaborate story. With no other witnesses around it's easy. He says that the salesman and he got into a argument. One thing led to another, including him saying that the salesman told him "you're going to pay for saying that." He says that the salesman then reached into his jacket just where you might have a gun hidden. So, he shoots him.

 

He's lying through his teeth, but if the story had occurred the way he mentioned it, the "Stand Your Ground" defense would apply. As he is innocent until proven guilty and with the only other witness dead, I say that he stands a good chance of being found not guilty.

I understand THIS situation. Here is the scenario that I find "slippery".

 

"Jim" is a loose cannon. He's had a bad day. Salesman is on his property. Jim doesn't like it. Jim shoots him and the salesman dies.

 

Jim makes up an elaborate story. With no other witnesses around it's easy. He says that the salesman and he got into a argument. One thing led to another, including him saying that the salesman told him "you're going to pay for saying that." He says that the salesman then reached into his jacket just where you might have a gun hidden. So, he shoots him.

 

He's lying through his teeth, but if the story had occurred the way he mentioned it, the "Stand Your Ground" defense would apply. As he is innocent until proven guilty and with the only other witness dead, I say that he stands a good chance of being found not guilty.

Your example could happen any where with out a stand your ground law. I could do this tomorrow and if it's my word versus the dead guy it will be tuff to prove my story isn't accurate.

Unless the guy was trying to attack him with frozen steaks, I don't see the correlation.