Duty to retreat v Stand your ground

[sealybobo]

Both were cowardly chicken shits, and needed a gun to go outside to feel safe. Both wanted to be seen as heroes, and both are murderers.

Both survived violent up close hands on attacks and used their lawfully concealed firearm to stop the attack.

This law makes me sick. I want black people to go taunt whites into pushing them down. Make sure you have someone video tape the white pushing the black person down. And then claim stand your ground.

I'll guarantee you they will change their tune on this then. I was watching the pundits on TV last night and I wanted to throw up. They were saying all bets are off after the guy was shoved to the ground. Doesn't matter if the black guy is backing away. Too late. He already did the violent act. Now whitey gets to kill him.

This is the most blatant racist law we have on our books. Or, it's racist how it's applied. I guarantee you if a white pushed a black and the black shot him dead the black would go to prison.

Here is the truth....actual statistics on the topic....

What liberal media won't tell you -- blacks benefit most from Stand Your Ground laws

But the debate has everything backwards over who benefits from the law. Poor blacks who live in high crime urban areas are not only the most likely victims of crime, they are also the ones who benefit the most from Stand Your Ground laws. It makes it easier for them to protect themselves when the police can't be there fast enough. Rules that make self-defense more difficult would impact blacks the most.

Blacks may make up just 16.6 percent of Florida's population, but they account for over 31 percent of the state's defendants invoking a Stand Your Ground defense. Black defendants who invoke this statute to justify their actions are acquitted 8 percent more frequently than whites who use that same defense.

Prior to "Stand Your Ground," citizens had to retreat as far as possible and then announce to the criminal that they were going to shoot. The "Stand Your Ground" law drops the original requirement to retreat. But lethal force is still only justified when a reasonable person would believe that an attacker intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death. The law doesn't protect anyone who provokes a confrontation.

A 2015 study in the journal Social Science & Medicine found that a person charged in such cases is twice as likely to be convicted of a crime if they killed a white victim as opposed to a minority.

And I showed you other evidence...

This video is exhibit a you’re wrong. Show me black guy gets wrongfully let you based on stand your ground.

Whites have a shoot a black guy get out of jail free card.

This law is so racist

 

[2aguy]

Both survived violent up close hands on attacks and used their lawfully concealed firearm to stop the attack.

This law makes me sick. I want black people to go taunt whites into pushing them down. Make sure you have someone video tape the white pushing the black person down. And then claim stand your ground.

I'll guarantee you they will change their tune on this then. I was watching the pundits on TV last night and I wanted to throw up. They were saying all bets are off after the guy was shoved to the ground. Doesn't matter if the black guy is backing away. Too late. He already did the violent act. Now whitey gets to kill him.

This is the most blatant racist law we have on our books. Or, it's racist how it's applied. I guarantee you if a white pushed a black and the black shot him dead the black would go to prison.

Here is the truth....actual statistics on the topic....

What liberal media won't tell you -- blacks benefit most from Stand Your Ground laws

But the debate has everything backwards over who benefits from the law. Poor blacks who live in high crime urban areas are not only the most likely victims of crime, they are also the ones who benefit the most from Stand Your Ground laws. It makes it easier for them to protect themselves when the police can't be there fast enough. Rules that make self-defense more difficult would impact blacks the most.

Blacks may make up just 16.6 percent of Florida's population, but they account for over 31 percent of the state's defendants invoking a Stand Your Ground defense. Black defendants who invoke this statute to justify their actions are acquitted 8 percent more frequently than whites who use that same defense.

Prior to "Stand Your Ground," citizens had to retreat as far as possible and then announce to the criminal that they were going to shoot. The "Stand Your Ground" law drops the original requirement to retreat. But lethal force is still only justified when a reasonable person would believe that an attacker intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death. The law doesn't protect anyone who provokes a confrontation.

A 2015 study in the journal Social Science & Medicine found that a person charged in such cases is twice as likely to be convicted of a crime if they killed a white victim as opposed to a minority.

And I showed you other evidence...

This video is exhibit a you’re wrong. Show me black guy gets wrongfully let you based on stand your ground.

Whites have a shoot a black guy get out of jail free card.

This law is so racist

And you are going irrational on this. You don't want to get rid of Stand Your Ground because then, as an actual victim, you will be on the hook in defending why you didn't run away from the criminal....you will be held guilty until you can prove yourself innocent....which is why Stand Your Ground was created in the first place.....

 

[sealybobo]

This law makes me sick. I want black people to go taunt whites into pushing them down. Make sure you have someone video tape the white pushing the black person down. And then claim stand your ground.

I'll guarantee you they will change their tune on this then. I was watching the pundits on TV last night and I wanted to throw up. They were saying all bets are off after the guy was shoved to the ground. Doesn't matter if the black guy is backing away. Too late. He already did the violent act. Now whitey gets to kill him.

This is the most blatant racist law we have on our books. Or, it's racist how it's applied. I guarantee you if a white pushed a black and the black shot him dead the black would go to prison.

Here is the truth....actual statistics on the topic....

What liberal media won't tell you -- blacks benefit most from Stand Your Ground laws

But the debate has everything backwards over who benefits from the law. Poor blacks who live in high crime urban areas are not only the most likely victims of crime, they are also the ones who benefit the most from Stand Your Ground laws. It makes it easier for them to protect themselves when the police can't be there fast enough. Rules that make self-defense more difficult would impact blacks the most.

Blacks may make up just 16.6 percent of Florida's population, but they account for over 31 percent of the state's defendants invoking a Stand Your Ground defense. Black defendants who invoke this statute to justify their actions are acquitted 8 percent more frequently than whites who use that same defense.

Prior to "Stand Your Ground," citizens had to retreat as far as possible and then announce to the criminal that they were going to shoot. The "Stand Your Ground" law drops the original requirement to retreat. But lethal force is still only justified when a reasonable person would believe that an attacker intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death. The law doesn't protect anyone who provokes a confrontation.

A 2015 study in the journal Social Science & Medicine found that a person charged in such cases is twice as likely to be convicted of a crime if they killed a white victim as opposed to a minority.

And I showed you other evidence...

This video is exhibit a you’re wrong. Show me black guy gets wrongfully let you based on stand your ground.

Whites have a shoot a black guy get out of jail free card.

This law is so racist

And you are going irrational on this. You don't want to get rid of Stand Your Ground because then, as an actual victim, you will be on the hook in defending why you didn't run away from the criminal....you will be held guilty until you can prove yourself innocent....which is why Stand Your Ground was created in the first place.....

That’s why I said the law needs tweaking not to be done away with.

He should have had the duty to only shoot if the guys coming forward. Based on what I saw 2nd degree murder

 

[2aguy]

Here is the truth....actual statistics on the topic....

What liberal media won't tell you -- blacks benefit most from Stand Your Ground laws

But the debate has everything backwards over who benefits from the law. Poor blacks who live in high crime urban areas are not only the most likely victims of crime, they are also the ones who benefit the most from Stand Your Ground laws. It makes it easier for them to protect themselves when the police can't be there fast enough. Rules that make self-defense more difficult would impact blacks the most.

Blacks may make up just 16.6 percent of Florida's population, but they account for over 31 percent of the state's defendants invoking a Stand Your Ground defense. Black defendants who invoke this statute to justify their actions are acquitted 8 percent more frequently than whites who use that same defense.

Prior to "Stand Your Ground," citizens had to retreat as far as possible and then announce to the criminal that they were going to shoot. The "Stand Your Ground" law drops the original requirement to retreat. But lethal force is still only justified when a reasonable person would believe that an attacker intends to inflict serious bodily harm or death. The law doesn't protect anyone who provokes a confrontation.

A 2015 study in the journal Social Science & Medicine found that a person charged in such cases is twice as likely to be convicted of a crime if they killed a white victim as opposed to a minority.

And I showed you other evidence...

This video is exhibit a you’re wrong. Show me black guy gets wrongfully let you based on stand your ground.

Whites have a shoot a black guy get out of jail free card.

This law is so racist

And you are going irrational on this. You don't want to get rid of Stand Your Ground because then, as an actual victim, you will be on the hook in defending why you didn't run away from the criminal....you will be held guilty until you can prove yourself innocent....which is why Stand Your Ground was created in the first place.....

That’s why I said the law needs tweaking not to be done away with.

He should have had the duty to only shoot if the guys coming forward. Based on what I saw 2nd degree murder

How do you know what the guy on the ground saw or didn't see? He likely had tunnel vision from the adrenaline spike in his system.....he was looking up at a much larger guy and you don't know exactly how far away the attacker was......since the video was from an odd angle well over 50 feet away from the actual attack.....and the black guy initially advanced as he hiked up his pants....

You weren't on the ground... you don't know what the victim saw or understood to be the risk by the attacker.......

 

[OODA_Loop]

He should have had the duty to only shoot if the guys coming forward. Based on what I saw 2nd degree murder

So attack with lethal force and stand there. Then your no longer capable of continued lethality ?

 

[sealybobo]

A 2015 study in the journal Social Science & Medicine found that a person charged in such cases is twice as likely to be convicted of a crime if they killed a white victim as opposed to a minority.

And I showed you other evidence...

This video is exhibit a you’re wrong. Show me black guy gets wrongfully let you based on stand your ground.

Whites have a shoot a black guy get out of jail free card.

This law is so racist

And you are going irrational on this. You don't want to get rid of Stand Your Ground because then, as an actual victim, you will be on the hook in defending why you didn't run away from the criminal....you will be held guilty until you can prove yourself innocent....which is why Stand Your Ground was created in the first place.....

That’s why I said the law needs tweaking not to be done away with.

He should have had the duty to only shoot if the guys coming forward. Based on what I saw 2nd degree murder

How do you know what the guy on the ground saw or didn't see? He likely had tunnel vision from the adrenaline spike in his system.....he was looking up at a much larger guy and you don't know exactly how far away the attacker was......since the video was from an odd angle well over 50 feet away from the actual attack.....and the black guy initially advanced as he hiked up his pants....

You weren't on the ground... you don't know what the victim saw or understood to be the risk by the attacker.......

If one thing positive comes of this is that people will stop hitting each other

 

[sealybobo]

He should have had the duty to only shoot if the guys coming forward. Based on what I saw 2nd degree murder

So attack with lethal force and stand there. Then your no longer capable of continued lethality ?

Explain

 

[2aguy]

And I showed you other evidence...

This video is exhibit a you’re wrong. Show me black guy gets wrongfully let you based on stand your ground.

Whites have a shoot a black guy get out of jail free card.

This law is so racist

And you are going irrational on this. You don't want to get rid of Stand Your Ground because then, as an actual victim, you will be on the hook in defending why you didn't run away from the criminal....you will be held guilty until you can prove yourself innocent....which is why Stand Your Ground was created in the first place.....

That’s why I said the law needs tweaking not to be done away with.

He should have had the duty to only shoot if the guys coming forward. Based on what I saw 2nd degree murder

How do you know what the guy on the ground saw or didn't see? He likely had tunnel vision from the adrenaline spike in his system.....he was looking up at a much larger guy and you don't know exactly how far away the attacker was......since the video was from an odd angle well over 50 feet away from the actual attack.....and the black guy initially advanced as he hiked up his pants....

You weren't on the ground... you don't know what the victim saw or understood to be the risk by the attacker.......

If one thing positive comes of this is that people will stop hitting each other

Yep...... as I posted earlier, the former Mayor Daley in Chicago, his nephew got into an argument with a guy outside a bar. The nephew punched the other guy once. The guy fell down, hit his head on the curb and was put into a coma. He never woke up and died.

Do not hit other people..... it leads to bad outcomes.

 

[kaz]

Thank you for taking the time to start this thread, [MENTION=23420]Quantum Windbag[/MENTION]

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.

Trevor is a bad example to bring up because the prosecutor pulled a political ploy by overreaching and charging the Hispanic George Zimmerman with second degree murder badly overreaching and then taking manslaughter off the table forcing the jury to pick between second degree murder and acquittal. He thought the jury would convict and that would force them to go for the second degree murder.

He lost, they acquitted. And rightly so. Second was an absurd charge and the prosecution didn't have any case for it. Many feel there was an excellent chance of a manslaughter charge sticking because the Hispanic George Zimmerman followed Trevor and that isn't stand your ground

 

[OODA_Loop]

He should have had the duty to only shoot if the guys coming forward. Based on what I saw 2nd degree murder

So attack with lethal force and stand there. Then your no longer capable of continued lethality ?

Explain

The assertion you're not threat if you are not moving forward is asinine.

 

[2aguy]

And I showed you other evidence...

This video is exhibit a you’re wrong. Show me black guy gets wrongfully let you based on stand your ground.

Whites have a shoot a black guy get out of jail free card.

This law is so racist

And you are going irrational on this. You don't want to get rid of Stand Your Ground because then, as an actual victim, you will be on the hook in defending why you didn't run away from the criminal....you will be held guilty until you can prove yourself innocent....which is why Stand Your Ground was created in the first place.....

That’s why I said the law needs tweaking not to be done away with.

He should have had the duty to only shoot if the guys coming forward. Based on what I saw 2nd degree murder

How do you know what the guy on the ground saw or didn't see? He likely had tunnel vision from the adrenaline spike in his system.....he was looking up at a much larger guy and you don't know exactly how far away the attacker was......since the video was from an odd angle well over 50 feet away from the actual attack.....and the black guy initially advanced as he hiked up his pants....

You weren't on the ground... you don't know what the victim saw or understood to be the risk by the attacker.......

If one thing positive comes of this is that people will stop hitting each other

Here is Masaad Ayoob on why we need Stand Your Ground laws....his piece is at 13:05 and explains how a good man was ruined because a prosecutor was able to drag him into court, because the state didn't have Stand Your Ground laws...

 

[sealybobo]

He should have had the duty to only shoot if the guys coming forward. Based on what I saw 2nd degree murder

So attack with lethal force and stand there. Then your no longer capable of continued lethality ?

Explain

The assertion you're not threat if you are not moving forward is asinine.

You know what I mean. Some guy pushes you, even knocks you to the ground, and you pull out your gun and the guy freezes, then you shoot him. That makes you a murderer and a great christian.

Please don't tell me Republicans/conservatives are christians. They are not. Or, actually, they are the perfect Christians. Bunch of evil cruel ignorant racist murderers.

 

[sealybobo]

This video is exhibit a you’re wrong. Show me black guy gets wrongfully let you based on stand your ground.

Whites have a shoot a black guy get out of jail free card.

This law is so racist

And you are going irrational on this. You don't want to get rid of Stand Your Ground because then, as an actual victim, you will be on the hook in defending why you didn't run away from the criminal....you will be held guilty until you can prove yourself innocent....which is why Stand Your Ground was created in the first place.....

That’s why I said the law needs tweaking not to be done away with.

He should have had the duty to only shoot if the guys coming forward. Based on what I saw 2nd degree murder

How do you know what the guy on the ground saw or didn't see? He likely had tunnel vision from the adrenaline spike in his system.....he was looking up at a much larger guy and you don't know exactly how far away the attacker was......since the video was from an odd angle well over 50 feet away from the actual attack.....and the black guy initially advanced as he hiked up his pants....

You weren't on the ground... you don't know what the victim saw or understood to be the risk by the attacker.......

If one thing positive comes of this is that people will stop hitting each other

Here is Masaad Ayoob on why we need Stand Your Ground laws....his piece is at 13:05 and explains how a good man was ruined because a prosecutor was able to drag him into court, because the state didn't have Stand Your Ground laws...

I already said for the 100th time, I don't want to do away with stand your ground but I want to fix it so a guy does have the duty to not shoot if he doesn't have to. That video shows the guy was a murderer, not defending his life. And I believe he's going to get charged. If not, the law is going to be tweeked.

 

[2aguy]

And you are going irrational on this. You don't want to get rid of Stand Your Ground because then, as an actual victim, you will be on the hook in defending why you didn't run away from the criminal....you will be held guilty until you can prove yourself innocent....which is why Stand Your Ground was created in the first place.....

That’s why I said the law needs tweaking not to be done away with.

He should have had the duty to only shoot if the guys coming forward. Based on what I saw 2nd degree murder

How do you know what the guy on the ground saw or didn't see? He likely had tunnel vision from the adrenaline spike in his system.....he was looking up at a much larger guy and you don't know exactly how far away the attacker was......since the video was from an odd angle well over 50 feet away from the actual attack.....and the black guy initially advanced as he hiked up his pants....

You weren't on the ground... you don't know what the victim saw or understood to be the risk by the attacker.......

If one thing positive comes of this is that people will stop hitting each other

Here is Masaad Ayoob on why we need Stand Your Ground laws....his piece is at 13:05 and explains how a good man was ruined because a prosecutor was able to drag him into court, because the state didn't have Stand Your Ground laws...

I already said for the 100th time, I don't want to do away with stand your ground but I want to fix it so a guy does have the duty to not shoot if he doesn't have to. That video shows the guy was a murderer, not defending his life. And I believe he's going to get charged. If not, the law is going to be tweeked.

They already have the duty to not shoot if they don't have to..... the video does not show the guy is a murderer.... he was violently attacked and under duress at the time he fired the weapon.....and for the video watcher it was 5 seconds....maybe? For the guy on the ground the adrenaline changed time for him.....tunnel vision and time compression are completely different for the victim vs. people watching the video from their homes.

 

[OODA_Loop]

There is no duty shoot.

 

[Care4all]

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.

FYI
Quantum Windbag died a few years ago, so he is not going to answer you.....

 

[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.

FYI
Quantum Windbag died a few years ago, so he is not going to answer you.....

Poor guy. I dread the day I find out my days are numbered. Actually they are already numbered I just don't know what that number is yet. And I'm not suffering, yet.

I go up north MI to our 65 acres in paradise and I look around and tell myself these good old days won't last forever.

Now you bummed me out.

 

[MacTheKnife]

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.

I pity anyone that may have you for a lawyer. You either have extremely poor analytical skills or you are so biased(as liberals usually are) that you cannot see this case in a competent manner.

First of all the black guy was not running away and your insertion of that is completely prejudicial.

Now if one watches the video you will see the black dude step back a second before he gets shot. As in when he sees the shooter pointing a pistol at him.

There is no evidence or indication whatsoever the shooter saw the black guy take a short step back.. Things were happening very fast and it is highly probable and likely the shooter did not even realize the black guy had taken a short step backwards. Also one can step backward and then lunge forwards if he is so inclined. The shooter had no ability to know for sure what the black guy might do next. He did not have the advantage of hindsight that we all have in this case.

In real life when someone gets assaulted (and there is no doubt the shooter in this case was assaulted)....one must make extremely quick decisions in oder to protect their life and or protect themselves from grievious bodily harm. And, these decisions must be made in the presence of danger, fear, shock and so forth.

Hindsight is always 20/20 --especially if you are watching a video.

The shooter had been blindsided by a unprovoked assault. He had done nothing wrong....all he was doing was talking to a woman about the fact they should not have parked in a handicap spot and the media down here has run reports about how so many people violate the handicap parking laws.

The white guy was on the ground as a result of that assault by the black guy, he was easy prey if the black guy wanted to continue the assault. The shooter had no idea what the black guy might do next. Thus he was in reasonable fear of his life or great bodily harm. Thus his decision to use deadly force was fully justified.

 

[MacTheKnife]

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.

hehheh Zimmerman was exonerated and the jury did not even have a video to see he was assaulted by the black guy. In this case there is a video showing the assault...no competent lawyer should expect this case to even go to trial and as we see the shooter was not even arrested.

However, due to political correctness and the current political climate...the media might be able to stir things up and put a lot of political pressure to reverse this decision not to arrest. Not likely since obama and eric holder are not around to bring federal pressure on local authorities like they did in the trayvon case. But it could happen, I do not think it will because the media though present down here and attempting to stir things up are not getting much traction. Yet, even if the fully justified decision by the authorities not to arrest the shooter were reversed and the case actually goes to trial, I do not see any jury making a conviction.