Duty to retreat v Stand your ground

[The Professor]

I just did a little research because of something [MENTION=38085]Noomi[/MENTION] said in another thread. It seems that not only is she completely wrong about how stand your ground laws work here, she is totally ignorant about the fact that Australia has the same basic understanding of the right to self defense as Florida.

That got me to thinking, how many other countries have stand your ground laws? It turns out that most of them do.

Jurors in the George Zimmerman murder trial discussed Florida’s “stand your ground” law before reaching a not guilty verdict on Saturday, according to juror B37. The controversial law eliminates the obligation to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense, even if it would be safe to do so. Do other countries require their citizens to retreat before using deadly force?

Many do not. English common law imposes a duty to retreat whenever it is safe. In continental Europe, the duty applies only when the defender provokes the attack, or when the attacker doesn’t understand the situation. (Europeans must retreat from young children with guns, for example.) Nor is there a general duty to retreat in countries like Japan and Argentina, which derive their criminal-law systems from Europe. Even England, originator of the duty to retreat, repealed the doctrine in 1967 by statute. Defenders of the European system argue that imposing a duty to retreat may prevent the attack on the victim’s life, but it permits an attack on his legal rights—the right to be in a public place, the right to move freely, etc. By passing the “stand your ground” law, Florida brought its laws closer to those of Europe. Otherwise, the U.S. is in the minority in having, within some states, an explicit duty to retreat.

Is stand your ground unique to the United States? - Slate Magazine

We are discussing another stand your ground where the shooter started the trouble and didn’t have to shoot.

So, I want black guys to go get ccw’s and then go verbally piss white guys off till they push them. Then the black guy has the right to blow them away.

That seems to be all it takes for a white guy to shoot a black guy. He was assaulted and afraid. Doesn’t matter that he stopped after seeing the gun. He pushed me so I can now defend myself by taking his life.

I urge you to reserve judgement and let this thing play out. I live in Florida, I know Florida law ( passed the Florida Bar) and saw the video. I would be shocked if the shooter, Michael Drejka, is not arrested soon. Here's why:

In interpreting law, a basis tenet is that each word is significant. The Florida Statutes, Section 776.012(2) provide that deadly force is allowed when the one using such force “reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to PREVENT imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another [innocent third party]” (explanatory insert and highlights are my own). The key word is PREVENT. The use of deadly force is allowed to prevent death or serious bodily injury not to seek vengeance for a harmful act already committed. If a man knocks you to the ground and you shoot him while he is running away you are begging for some serious prison time.

The actual shoving incident does not give rise to a legitimate a claim of self defense. The defendant should be charged and convicted unless there is something more to the case than already known. For example, if after having shoved the defendant to the ground the victim had threatened to kill him, the psychical contact may have convinced the defendant the man's threats were serious and deadly force was necessary. However, I am convinced that the shoving incident stands alone and there were no other threats. The conduct displayed by the victim in the video is completely inconsistent with a man who threatened to continue a violent attack. Additionally, if such threats were made they would certainly have been included in the police report.

There is only one question that must be asked to determine whether the defendant's conduct was self defense and therefore lawful or a criminal violation of the law for which he should be prosecuted: At the precise moment the defendant pulled the trigger did he reasonably believe that deadly force was necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself? If the answer is yes, he acted lawfully in self defense; if the answer is no, he must be charged with the unlawful taking of a human life.

CONCLUSION: I believe the man will ultimately be charged. All the evidence points to the fact that at the very moment he pulled the trigger, the defendant was not in danger of imminent serious bodily injury or death; therefore the use of deadly force was unlawful.

We shall see.

 

[OODA_Loop]

[

The actual shoving incident does not give rise to a legitimate a claim of self defense.

Bob Gualtieri, the Pinellas County sheriff, insisted he has to follow the "stand your ground" law, which dictates that if a person feels threatened they have the right to shoot.“He told deputies that he had to shoot to defend himself. Those are the facts and that’s the law," Sherrif Gualtieri said at a press conference. “No matter how you slice it or dice it that was a violent push to the ground.”

Sheriff: Shooting fits 'Stand Your Ground'

"It wasn't just a push," Gualtieri explained. "He really slammed him to the ground and he pushed him with great force. This was a violent push."

Drejka then pulled out a handgun and shot McGlockton once in the chest. Gualtieri specified that Drejka took four seconds to fire his weapon.

Ali Salous, the owner of the Circle A convenience store, told us Drejka has caused problems at his store before.

"This guy -- he did this before," Salous said. "He always hangs out in the parking lot and if he sees someone parking, he just wants to start trouble with people."

Gualtieri, however, maintained that Drejka's history didn't matter when it comes to making an arrest. All that matters, according to the sheriff, are the facts of this brief confrontation caught on tape.

"He might well be a thorn in people's side. He might be a jerk," Gualtieri explained. "He might be all those things, it doesn't matter. What matters is 'did McGlockton slam Drejka to the ground?' Yes, he did.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I just did a little research because of something [MENTION=38085]Noomi[/MENTION] said in another thread. It seems that not only is she completely wrong about how stand your ground laws work here, she is totally ignorant about the fact that Australia has the same basic understanding of the right to self defense as Florida.

That got me to thinking, how many other countries have stand your ground laws? It turns out that most of them do.

Jurors in the George Zimmerman murder trial discussed Florida’s “stand your ground” law before reaching a not guilty verdict on Saturday, according to juror B37. The controversial law eliminates the obligation to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense, even if it would be safe to do so. Do other countries require their citizens to retreat before using deadly force?

Many do not. English common law imposes a duty to retreat whenever it is safe. In continental Europe, the duty applies only when the defender provokes the attack, or when the attacker doesn’t understand the situation. (Europeans must retreat from young children with guns, for example.) Nor is there a general duty to retreat in countries like Japan and Argentina, which derive their criminal-law systems from Europe. Even England, originator of the duty to retreat, repealed the doctrine in 1967 by statute. Defenders of the European system argue that imposing a duty to retreat may prevent the attack on the victim’s life, but it permits an attack on his legal rights—the right to be in a public place, the right to move freely, etc. By passing the “stand your ground” law, Florida brought its laws closer to those of Europe. Otherwise, the U.S. is in the minority in having, within some states, an explicit duty to retreat.

Is stand your ground unique to the United States? - Slate Magazine

We are discussing another stand your ground where the shooter started the trouble and didn’t have to shoot.

So, I want black guys to go get ccw’s and then go verbally piss white guys off till they push them. Then the black guy has the right to blow them away.

That seems to be all it takes for a white guy to shoot a black guy. He was assaulted and afraid. Doesn’t matter that he stopped after seeing the gun. He pushed me so I can now defend myself by taking his life.

I urge you to reserve judgement and let this thing play out. I live in Florida, I know Florida law ( passed the Florida Bar) and saw the video. I would be shocked if the shooter, Michael Drejka, is not arrested soon. Here's why:

In interpreting law, a basis tenet is that each word is significant. The Florida Statutes, Section 776.012(2) provide that deadly force is allowed when the one using such force “reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to PREVENT imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another [innocent third party]” (explanatory insert and highlights are my own). The key word is PREVENT. The use of deadly force is allowed to prevent death or serious bodily injury not to seek vengeance for a harmful act already committed. If a man knocks you to the ground and you shoot him while he is running away you are begging for some serious prison time.

The actual shoving incident does not give rise to a legitimate a claim of self defense. The defendant should be charged and convicted unless there is something more to the case than already known. For example, if after having shoved the defendant to the ground the victim had threatened to kill him, the psychical contact may have convinced the defendant the man's threats were serious and deadly force was necessary. However, I am convinced that the shoving incident stands alone and there were no other threats. The conduct displayed by the victim in the video is completely inconsistent with a man who threatened to continue a violent attack. Additionally, if such threats were made they would certainly have been included in the police report.

There is only one question that must be asked to determine whether the defendant's conduct was self defense and therefore lawful or a criminal violation of the law for which he should be prosecuted: At the precise moment the defendant pulled the trigger did he reasonably believe that deadly force was necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself? If the answer is yes, he acted lawfully in self defense; if the answer is no, he must be charged with the unlawful taking of a human life.

CONCLUSION: I believe the man will ultimately be charged. All the evidence points to the fact that at the very moment he pulled the trigger, the defendant was not in danger of imminent serious bodily injury or death; therefore the use of deadly force was unlawful.

We shall see.

Disagree.

Here's why:

The State isn't going to embarrass itself again with another Zimmerman debacle.

It's as much about politics as the law.

 

[sealybobo]

I just did a little research because of something [MENTION=38085]Noomi[/MENTION] said in another thread. It seems that not only is she completely wrong about how stand your ground laws work here, she is totally ignorant about the fact that Australia has the same basic understanding of the right to self defense as Florida.

That got me to thinking, how many other countries have stand your ground laws? It turns out that most of them do.

Jurors in the George Zimmerman murder trial discussed Florida’s “stand your ground” law before reaching a not guilty verdict on Saturday, according to juror B37. The controversial law eliminates the obligation to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense, even if it would be safe to do so. Do other countries require their citizens to retreat before using deadly force?

Many do not. English common law imposes a duty to retreat whenever it is safe. In continental Europe, the duty applies only when the defender provokes the attack, or when the attacker doesn’t understand the situation. (Europeans must retreat from young children with guns, for example.) Nor is there a general duty to retreat in countries like Japan and Argentina, which derive their criminal-law systems from Europe. Even England, originator of the duty to retreat, repealed the doctrine in 1967 by statute. Defenders of the European system argue that imposing a duty to retreat may prevent the attack on the victim’s life, but it permits an attack on his legal rights—the right to be in a public place, the right to move freely, etc. By passing the “stand your ground” law, Florida brought its laws closer to those of Europe. Otherwise, the U.S. is in the minority in having, within some states, an explicit duty to retreat.

Is stand your ground unique to the United States? - Slate Magazine

We are discussing another stand your ground where the shooter started the trouble and didn’t have to shoot.

So, I want black guys to go get ccw’s and then go verbally piss white guys off till they push them. Then the black guy has the right to blow them away.

That seems to be all it takes for a white guy to shoot a black guy. He was assaulted and afraid. Doesn’t matter that he stopped after seeing the gun. He pushed me so I can now defend myself by taking his life.

I urge you to reserve judgement and let this thing play out. I live in Florida, I know Florida law ( passed the Florida Bar) and saw the video. I would be shocked if the shooter, Michael Drejka, is not arrested soon. Here's why:

In interpreting law, a basis tenet is that each word is significant. The Florida Statutes, Section 776.012(2) provide that deadly force is allowed when the one using such force “reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to PREVENT imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another [innocent third party]” (explanatory insert and highlights are my own). The key word is PREVENT. The use of deadly force is allowed to prevent death or serious bodily injury not to seek vengeance for a harmful act already committed. If a man knocks you to the ground and you shoot him while he is running away you are begging for some serious prison time.

The actual shoving incident does not give rise to a legitimate a claim of self defense. The defendant should be charged and convicted unless there is something more to the case than already known. For example, if after having shoved the defendant to the ground the victim had threatened to kill him, the psychical contact may have convinced the defendant the man's threats were serious and deadly force was necessary. However, I am convinced that the shoving incident stands alone and there were no other threats. The conduct displayed by the victim in the video is completely inconsistent with a man who threatened to continue a violent attack. Additionally, if such threats were made they would certainly have been included in the police report.

There is only one question that must be asked to determine whether the defendant's conduct was self defense and therefore lawful or a criminal violation of the law for which he should be prosecuted: At the precise moment the defendant pulled the trigger did he reasonably believe that deadly force was necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself? If the answer is yes, he acted lawfully in self defense; if the answer is no, he must be charged with the unlawful taking of a human life.

CONCLUSION: I believe the man will ultimately be charged. All the evidence points to the fact that at the very moment he pulled the trigger, the defendant was not in danger of imminent serious bodily injury or death; therefore the use of deadly force was unlawful.

We shall see.

Key word is reasonably when you ask did he reasonably believe. The question is does the jury believe he believed. Or do they believe he was reasonable to use deadly force? Because I don't care if he felt he reasonably believed. Maybe he's paranoid. Maybe he's a look cannon.

 

[The Professor]

[

The actual shoving incident does not give rise to a legitimate a claim of self defense.

Bob Gualtieri, the Pinellas County sheriff, insisted he has to follow the "stand your ground" law, which dictates that if a person feels threatened they have the right to shoot.“He told deputies that he had to shoot to defend himself. Those are the facts and that’s the law," Sherrif Gualtieri said at a press conference. “No matter how you slice it or dice it that was a violent push to the ground.”

Sheriff: Shooting fits 'Stand Your Ground'

"It wasn't just a push," Gualtieri explained. "He really slammed him to the ground and he pushed him with great force. This was a violent push."

Drejka then pulled out a handgun and shot McGlockton once in the chest. Gualtieri specified that Drejka took four seconds to fire his weapon.

Ali Salous, the owner of the Circle A convenience store, told us Drejka has caused problems at his store before.

"This guy -- he did this before," Salous said. "He always hangs out in the parking lot and if he sees someone parking, he just wants to start trouble with people."

Gualtieri, however, maintained that Drejka's history didn't matter when it comes to making an arrest. All that matters, according to the sheriff, are the facts of this brief confrontation caught on tape.


"He might well be a thorn in people's side. He might be a jerk," Gualtieri explained. "He might be all those things, it doesn't matter. What matters is 'did McGlockton slam Drejka to the ground?' Yes, he did.

The sheriff does not know the law; I do. Whether the push was violent or not is immaterial. When the defendant fired his weapon he was not in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death which makes the use of deadly force illegal under Florida law.

Remember, in the Zimmerman case law enforcement let him go but the DA decided to prosecute. The sheriff does not have the final say in this matter.

I still predict the man will be charged. If not, God help us all.

 

[OODA_Loop]

The sheriff does not know the law; I do.

Society and rule of law go with the Sheriff.

 

[The Professor]

I just did a little research because of something [MENTION=38085]Noomi[/MENTION] said in another thread. It seems that not only is she completely wrong about how stand your ground laws work here, she is totally ignorant about the fact that Australia has the same basic understanding of the right to self defense as Florida.

That got me to thinking, how many other countries have stand your ground laws? It turns out that most of them do.

Jurors in the George Zimmerman murder trial discussed Florida’s “stand your ground” law before reaching a not guilty verdict on Saturday, according to juror B37. The controversial law eliminates the obligation to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense, even if it would be safe to do so. Do other countries require their citizens to retreat before using deadly force?

Many do not. English common law imposes a duty to retreat whenever it is safe. In continental Europe, the duty applies only when the defender provokes the attack, or when the attacker doesn’t understand the situation. (Europeans must retreat from young children with guns, for example.) Nor is there a general duty to retreat in countries like Japan and Argentina, which derive their criminal-law systems from Europe. Even England, originator of the duty to retreat, repealed the doctrine in 1967 by statute. Defenders of the European system argue that imposing a duty to retreat may prevent the attack on the victim’s life, but it permits an attack on his legal rights—the right to be in a public place, the right to move freely, etc. By passing the “stand your ground” law, Florida brought its laws closer to those of Europe. Otherwise, the U.S. is in the minority in having, within some states, an explicit duty to retreat.

Is stand your ground unique to the United States? - Slate Magazine

We are discussing another stand your ground where the shooter started the trouble and didn’t have to shoot.

So, I want black guys to go get ccw’s and then go verbally piss white guys off till they push them. Then the black guy has the right to blow them away.

That seems to be all it takes for a white guy to shoot a black guy. He was assaulted and afraid. Doesn’t matter that he stopped after seeing the gun. He pushed me so I can now defend myself by taking his life.

I urge you to reserve judgement and let this thing play out. I live in Florida, I know Florida law ( passed the Florida Bar) and saw the video. I would be shocked if the shooter, Michael Drejka, is not arrested soon. Here's why:

In interpreting law, a basis tenet is that each word is significant. The Florida Statutes, Section 776.012(2) provide that deadly force is allowed when the one using such force “reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to PREVENT imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another [innocent third party]” (explanatory insert and highlights are my own). The key word is PREVENT. The use of deadly force is allowed to prevent death or serious bodily injury not to seek vengeance for a harmful act already committed. If a man knocks you to the ground and you shoot him while he is running away you are begging for some serious prison time.

The actual shoving incident does not give rise to a legitimate a claim of self defense. The defendant should be charged and convicted unless there is something more to the case than already known. For example, if after having shoved the defendant to the ground the victim had threatened to kill him, the psychical contact may have convinced the defendant the man's threats were serious and deadly force was necessary. However, I am convinced that the shoving incident stands alone and there were no other threats. The conduct displayed by the victim in the video is completely inconsistent with a man who threatened to continue a violent attack. Additionally, if such threats were made they would certainly have been included in the police report.

There is only one question that must be asked to determine whether the defendant's conduct was self defense and therefore lawful or a criminal violation of the law for which he should be prosecuted: At the precise moment the defendant pulled the trigger did he reasonably believe that deadly force was necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself? If the answer is yes, he acted lawfully in self defense; if the answer is no, he must be charged with the unlawful taking of a human life.

CONCLUSION: I believe the man will ultimately be charged. All the evidence points to the fact that at the very moment he pulled the trigger, the defendant was not in danger of imminent serious bodily injury or death; therefore the use of deadly force was unlawful.

We shall see.

Key word is reasonably when you ask did he reasonably believe. The question is does the jury believe he believed. Or do they believe he was reasonable to use deadly force? Because I don't care if he felt he reasonably believed. Maybe he's paranoid. Maybe he's a look cannon.

I agree.

I will only add that if a were sitting on a jury and the only evidence I had was the video I wold vote to convict the man.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Remember, in the Zimmerman case law enforcement let him go but the DA decided to prosecute. The sheriff does not have the final say in this matter.

And the DA got handed their ass for the same grounds/reasons the Police didn't want to press charges. The DA wanted to press charges for political reasons and got hammered.

 

[The Professor]

Remember, in the Zimmerman case law enforcement let him go but the DA decided to prosecute. The sheriff does not have the final say in this matter.

And the DA got handed their ass for the same grounds/reasons the Police didn't want to press charges. The DA wanted to for political reasons and got hammered.

Two completely different cases. In the Zimmerman case, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude Zimmerman acted in self defense; however in the present case, for reasons I have already made clear, I doubt that a claim of self defense will keep the shooter out of jail.

CONCLUSION: Let a jury decide. To give the guy a walk in spite of the undeniable evidence would be one of the worst miscarriages of justice I have ever heard of, and I have heard many.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Two completely different cases. In the Zimmerman case, there was sufficient evidence for the jury to conclude Zimmerman acted in self defense;.

So the evidence thus far obtained by PSCO in this case resulted in their releasing him with out charges on self-defense. Thats not a good indication. Your legal prowess notwithstanding.

 

[OODA_Loop]

CONCLUSION: Let a jury decide. To give the guy a walk in spite of the undeniable evidence would be one of the worst miscarriages of justice I have ever heard of, and I have heard many.

There aren't even charges ?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Thank you for taking the time to start this thread, @Quantum Windbag

Your link says that 'English common law imposes a duty to retreat whenever it is safe.' - does this apply to America? If so, Zimmerman had plenty of chance to retreat - simply by not following Trayvon, and staying inside his car, where he would have been safe.

Whether Australia has such laws or not, I don't know - I have never heard of SYG being used in a case in which someone has died, and if the killer was the one who started the confrontation, I can tell you right now that they would be raked over the coals at trial and a jury may well find it hard to return a not guilty verdict, even if the defendant was defending themselves at the time.

How did Zimmerman have a chance to retreat after Martin had him on the ground?

I already posted in the other thread to show you that Australia has no duty to retreat as long as the person using the deadly force reasonably believed he was in danger. Why would anyone be raked over the coals for defending themselves from a rapist, even if the attack started because the woman slapped the guys face? You really aren't thinking things through, you should try dropping the emotions and consider exactly what it is you are advocating.

The Zimmerman Syndrom, i.e. vigilantism, is only carried out when the protagonist (Zimmerman) believes he has overwhelming power and can bully his way to a victory.

The asshole in question was the bully, the target a women, and the victim a hero. Let's all hope the shooter gets the needle, he earned it.

 

[sealybobo]

I just did a little research because of something [MENTION=38085]Noomi[/MENTION] said in another thread. It seems that not only is she completely wrong about how stand your ground laws work here, she is totally ignorant about the fact that Australia has the same basic understanding of the right to self defense as Florida.

That got me to thinking, how many other countries have stand your ground laws? It turns out that most of them do.

Jurors in the George Zimmerman murder trial discussed Florida’s “stand your ground” law before reaching a not guilty verdict on Saturday, according to juror B37. The controversial law eliminates the obligation to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense, even if it would be safe to do so. Do other countries require their citizens to retreat before using deadly force?

Many do not. English common law imposes a duty to retreat whenever it is safe. In continental Europe, the duty applies only when the defender provokes the attack, or when the attacker doesn’t understand the situation. (Europeans must retreat from young children with guns, for example.) Nor is there a general duty to retreat in countries like Japan and Argentina, which derive their criminal-law systems from Europe. Even England, originator of the duty to retreat, repealed the doctrine in 1967 by statute. Defenders of the European system argue that imposing a duty to retreat may prevent the attack on the victim’s life, but it permits an attack on his legal rights—the right to be in a public place, the right to move freely, etc. By passing the “stand your ground” law, Florida brought its laws closer to those of Europe. Otherwise, the U.S. is in the minority in having, within some states, an explicit duty to retreat.

Is stand your ground unique to the United States? - Slate Magazine

We are discussing another stand your ground where the shooter started the trouble and didn’t have to shoot.

So, I want black guys to go get ccw’s and then go verbally piss white guys off till they push them. Then the black guy has the right to blow them away.

That seems to be all it takes for a white guy to shoot a black guy. He was assaulted and afraid. Doesn’t matter that he stopped after seeing the gun. He pushed me so I can now defend myself by taking his life.

I urge you to reserve judgement and let this thing play out. I live in Florida, I know Florida law ( passed the Florida Bar) and saw the video. I would be shocked if the shooter, Michael Drejka, is not arrested soon. Here's why:

In interpreting law, a basis tenet is that each word is significant. The Florida Statutes, Section 776.012(2) provide that deadly force is allowed when the one using such force “reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to PREVENT imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another [innocent third party]” (explanatory insert and highlights are my own). The key word is PREVENT. The use of deadly force is allowed to prevent death or serious bodily injury not to seek vengeance for a harmful act already committed. If a man knocks you to the ground and you shoot him while he is running away you are begging for some serious prison time.

The actual shoving incident does not give rise to a legitimate a claim of self defense. The defendant should be charged and convicted unless there is something more to the case than already known. For example, if after having shoved the defendant to the ground the victim had threatened to kill him, the psychical contact may have convinced the defendant the man's threats were serious and deadly force was necessary. However, I am convinced that the shoving incident stands alone and there were no other threats. The conduct displayed by the victim in the video is completely inconsistent with a man who threatened to continue a violent attack. Additionally, if such threats were made they would certainly have been included in the police report.

There is only one question that must be asked to determine whether the defendant's conduct was self defense and therefore lawful or a criminal violation of the law for which he should be prosecuted: At the precise moment the defendant pulled the trigger did he reasonably believe that deadly force was necessary to prevent death or serious bodily injury to himself? If the answer is yes, he acted lawfully in self defense; if the answer is no, he must be charged with the unlawful taking of a human life.

CONCLUSION: I believe the man will ultimately be charged. All the evidence points to the fact that at the very moment he pulled the trigger, the defendant was not in danger of imminent serious bodily injury or death; therefore the use of deadly force was unlawful.

We shall see.

Key word is reasonably when you ask did he reasonably believe. The question is does the jury believe he believed. Or do they believe he was reasonable to use deadly force? Because I don't care if he felt he reasonably believed. Maybe he's paranoid. Maybe he's a look cannon.

I agree.

I will only add that if a were sitting on a jury and the only evidence I had was the video I wold vote to convict the man.

Me too. The proper move would have been to pull out the gun and point it at the guy and say WHAT THE FUCK MAN? Then if he comes forward at all I blow him away.

The pusher did enough to justify the guy being able to pull out his gun, right?

But then the guy with the gun would probably get in trouble for even pulling the gun. Why? Because he was known there for starting trouble. So if you are a troublemaker, you shouldn't be carrying a gun. I find the fucker guilty just because like Zimmerman he ran around pretending to be sheriff while carrying a gun. Look hard enough for trouble you will find it. So I think the guy was looking to kill someone IMO.

 

[sealybobo]

Remember, in the Zimmerman case law enforcement let him go but the DA decided to prosecute. The sheriff does not have the final say in this matter.

And the DA got handed their ass for the same grounds/reasons the Police didn't want to press charges. The DA wanted to press charges for political reasons and got hammered.

They need to send a message that it is not ok to go out and look for trouble and when you find it, shoot whoever you antagonize.

And if I smack you and you pull out your gun and I take a step back, you do not have the right to shoot me. I know you'll SAY you were in fear for your life but you weren't really were you.

 

[OODA_Loop]

The pusher did enough to justify the guy being able to pull out his gun, right?

The pusher did enough to justify the guy shooting him in the eyes of law enforcement.

 

[The Professor]

CONCLUSION: Let a jury decide. To give the guy a walk in spite of the undeniable evidence would be one of the worst miscarriages of justice I have ever heard of, and I have heard many.

There aren't even charges ?

It isn't over. As I have tried to explain to you, the chief of police does not have the final say. You should know that. Why don't you?

 

[OODA_Loop]

It isn't over. As I have tried to explain to you, the chief of police does not have the final say. You should know that. Why don't you?

The Sheriff consulted the State Attorney before cutting him loose. He would not make that call in a vacuum.

When the LE claims there is no evidence it is rare to pursue let alone get a conviction. See: State of Florida vs Zimmerman

 

[The Professor]

The pusher did enough to justify the guy being able to pull out his gun, right?

The pusher did enough to justify the guy shooting him in the eyes of law enforcement.

The pusher did enough to justify the guy being able to pull out his gun, right?

The pusher did enough to justify the guy shooting him in the eyes of law enforcement.

Bull shit. You don't know anything about the law. I have a JD (Juris Doctorate) and passed the Bar. For reasons I have already made clear, the pushing by itself did not justify the use of deadly force.

Since you missed it the first time around, I will explain it to you again (this time, quite playing with you schlong and try to concentrate.

In interpreting law, a basis tenet is that each word is significant. The Florida Statutes, Section 776.012(2) provide that deadly force is allowed when the one using such force “reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to PREVENT imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another [innocent third party]” (explanatory insert and highlights are my own). The key word is PREVENT. The use of deadly force is allowed to prevent death or serious bodily injury not to seek vengeance for a harmful act already committed. If a man knocks you to the ground and you shoot him while he is running away you are begging for some serious prison time.

The actual shoving incident does not give rise to a legitimate a claim of self defense. The defendant should be charged and convicted unless there is something more to the case than already known. For example, if after having shoved the defendant to the ground the victim had threatened to kill him, the psychical contact may have convinced the defendant the man's threats were serious and deadly force was necessary. However, I am convinced that the shoving incident stands alone and there were no other threats. The conduct displayed by the victim in the video is completely inconsistent with a man who threatened to continue a violent attack. Additionally, if such threats were made they would certainly have been included in the police report.

When I was born, even before I first pressed my lips to my others breasts, I knew as much about the law as you do, which is NOTHING.

Now you can have the last word. I am tired of wasting my time trying to share what I have learned while pursuing a doctorate in law and practicing law with a bunch of ignorant arrogant buttholes who for some mysterious reason think they know the law better than the experts.

 

[sealybobo]

The pusher did enough to justify the guy being able to pull out his gun, right?

The pusher did enough to justify the guy shooting him in the eyes of law enforcement.

And you agree? I mean, I understand no one should be shoved down on the ground in such a violent manner and if he would shove him like that what other bodily harm would he do to him if he even got up and spoke back. He probably would have kicked his ass. But, I think based on the tape that black man wasn't causing him any threat. He pulled out the gun and that stopped the threat. He was mad, angry, humiliated, infuriated, but he wasn't in fear for his life. And if this wasn't caught on tape you'd maybe have a better argument but based on this tape, he's guilty af.

Cops aren't perfect. My cop made a mistake. He arrested me and it cost me $1000 for a judge to explain to him that he doesn't know the law. I had the right to defend myself. He was coming at me. I actually used stand your ground as my defense. The cop said I struck first. I don't have to be hit to defend myself. I just have to fear that a punch is coming. But if I pulled out a gun and the guy coming at me to hit me with his fist stopped, I would be guilty of shooting someone who was no longer a threat. I would no longer be able to say I was in fear for my life.

That tape is pretty valuable. More valuable than any witness. If they don't charge this guy then the Florida stand your ground law is flawed big time. If I were black people I would go out and get white people to push me and then I would blow them away for being in fear for my life. But get it on tape. Make sure you get the white person pushing you. Then no matter what happens after the push you get to kill yourself a white devil.

 

[sealybobo]

The pusher did enough to justify the guy being able to pull out his gun, right?

The pusher did enough to justify the guy shooting him in the eyes of law enforcement.

The pusher did enough to justify the guy being able to pull out his gun, right?

The pusher did enough to justify the guy shooting him in the eyes of law enforcement.

Bull shit. You don't know anything about the law. I have a JD (Juris Doctorate) and passed the Bar. For reasons I have already made clear, the pushing by itself did not justify the use of deadly force.

Since you missed it the first time around, I will explain it to you again (this time, quite playing with you schlong and try to concentrate.

In interpreting law, a basis tenet is that each word is significant. The Florida Statutes, Section 776.012(2) provide that deadly force is allowed when the one using such force “reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to PREVENT imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another [innocent third party]” (explanatory insert and highlights are my own). The key word is PREVENT. The use of deadly force is allowed to prevent death or serious bodily injury not to seek vengeance for a harmful act already committed. If a man knocks you to the ground and you shoot him while he is running away you are begging for some serious prison time.

The actual shoving incident does not give rise to a legitimate a claim of self defense. The defendant should be charged and convicted unless there is something more to the case than already known. For example, if after having shoved the defendant to the ground the victim had threatened to kill him, the psychical contact may have convinced the defendant the man's threats were serious and deadly force was necessary. However, I am convinced that the shoving incident stands alone and there were no other threats. The conduct displayed by the victim in the video is completely inconsistent with a man who threatened to continue a violent attack. Additionally, if such threats were made they would certainly have been included in the police report.

When I was born, even before I first pressed my lips to my others breasts, I knew as much about the law as you do, which is NOTHING.

Now you can have the last word. I am tired of wasting my time trying to share what I have learned while pursuing a doctorate in law and practicing law with a bunch of ignorant arrogant buttholes who for some mysterious reason think they know the law better than the experts.

They want to be able to murder with impunity. This is a kill a black person and get out of jail free card. And even if the law does say they are innocent, they don't even acknowledge that if that's true, the law is flawed and needs to be changed. Or clarified. Everyone with a CCW needs to be re trained SPECIFICALLY on Stand your Ground. They need to be taught when it's ok to shoot and when it's not.