Florida Man Invokes ‘Stand Your Ground’ Law After Shooting Fellow Pizza Customer

[Politico]

My understanding was that the shooter asked the impatient customer to stop using obscenities and that the impatient customer took umbrage and got physical.

Correct. He started the confrontation.

 

[Missourian]

In either case you've been pushing the tacit approval of shooting the unarmed, which would have made you an excellent choice for Adam Lanza's defense attorney.

Too bad your prospective client is dead. But hey, you've still got this guy. Rotsa ruck with that one too.

I see you edited after I quoted.

I am saying you, or I have the right to defend ourselves from violence.

I understand you have no logical rebuttal, but exploiting a tragedy to attempt to score some kind of warped "internet win" is lower than low.

I'll wait while you attempt to extricate yourself from this shameful behavior by explaining how defending oneself from an criminal attack [minimally assault in the third degree (The person purposely places another person in apprehension of immediate physical injury)] is at all congruous to the tragedy at Sandy Hook.

 

[The Professor]

Moral of the story is...don't raise you fist and threaten violence and you won't get shot.

Pretty simple I think.

WTF, Was He afraid of being beaten to death with a soggy pepperoni pizza.UNBELIEVABLE.

A 142 pound woman is on trial for killing an aspiring rapper with one punch to the face during a party game in which the victim agreed to be hit as part of a $5 bet.


John "Fatboy" Powell, 25, was attending and performing at a party with his band Krazy Killaz last September when he accepted a $5 party bet to be punched in the face by a woman.


A few minutes after Tiffany Startz, 22, had delivered a punch to his face, Powell passed out. He was taken to Provena Saint Joseph Medical Center in Joliet, Ill., where he died.



Woman on Trial For Killing Rapper With One Punch - ABC News

​

Try shooting someone in Florida because you thought he was going to punch you. In order to use deadly force, a defendant must have a REASONABLE fear of death or serious bodily injury. Although a single punch has been known to kill, such deaths are extremely rare, and that rarity makes it difficult to meet the legal standard for the use of deadly force. It's going to take a lot more than "I was afraid that he might punch me" to justify the use of deadly force in my home state of Florida. My advice: Before you use deadly force, make damn sure you know the law.

Frankly, anyone who believes that the threat of being punched entitles him to kill the potential puncher should never venture out in public. Those who harbor unreasonable neurotic fears should not be armed. Period.

 

[Missourian]

If that is you grilling in the pic.....Man Up! You got size.

This is where we get off the tracks.

I'm not saying that I personally would shoot someone.

I'm saying the right exists.

And I'm saying the right exist equally...regardless of size, race, sex or age...just the way the law requires.

You guys post like you know exactly what is going to happen, but you don't.

Once a situation is escalated to any kind of physical violence, anything can happen.

A person with so little self control that he will assault me with his fists will assault me with anything.

I fought when I was younger, I beat guys bigger than me and I was beat by guys smaller than me...but fighting had rules back then...and those rules aren't adhered to today.

Once a man was down, the fight was over...kick a man when he's down you'd be damn near ostracized and labeled cowardly.

Those conventions no longer exist, and to pretend they do is naivete bordering on foolhardiness.

Any man who would assault you over the trivial is capable of killing you over the trivial.

The right exists? I've never seen a right to shoot someone that raised his voice and/or his hand. This is vigilante justice. For all we know the guy was brushing his hair out of his eyes.

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? This guy could have been killed simply because the guy with a gun couldn't seem to control his temper.

Not at all. The report states as fact that the man drew back to punch the shooter and we have been debating as though this was true. Too late to move the goalposts.

If that was not the case, it is an entirely different debate, one we can have if the circumstances arise.

I've made my case pretty plainly.

One punch can case death or grave bodily harm. That is the requirement to uphold a self defense justification.

As I said in my first post in this thread...Moral of the story is...don't raise you fist and threaten violence and you won't get shot.

Still pretty simple I think.

 

[Missourian]

WTF, Was He afraid of being beaten to death with a soggy pepperoni pizza.UNBELIEVABLE.

A 142 pound woman is on trial for killing an aspiring rapper with one punch to the face during a party game in which the victim agreed to be hit as part of a $5 bet.


John "Fatboy" Powell, 25, was attending and performing at a party with his band Krazy Killaz last September when he accepted a $5 party bet to be punched in the face by a woman.


A few minutes after Tiffany Startz, 22, had delivered a punch to his face, Powell passed out. He was taken to Provena Saint Joseph Medical Center in Joliet, Ill., where he died.



Woman on Trial For Killing Rapper With One Punch - ABC News

​

Try shooting someone in Florida because you thought he was going to punch you. In order to use deadly force, a defendant must have a REASONABLE fear of death or serious bodily injury. Although a single punch has been known to kill, such deaths are extremely rare, and that rarity makes it difficult to meet the legal standard for the use of deadly force. It's going to take a lot more than "I was afraid that he might punch me" to justify the use of deadly force in my home state of Florida. My advice: Before you use deadly force, make damn sure you know the law.

Frankly, anyone who believes that the threat of being punched entitles him to kill the potential puncher should never venture out in public. Those who harbor unreasonable neurotic fears should not be armed. Period.

Just the opposite.

People who cannot control their temper and feel they somehow have a right to assault others should not go out in public.

It simply amazes me how made people take the side of the attacker.

The new normal I suppose.

The attacker is the victim and the defender is the criminal.

 

[Missourian]

My understanding was that the shooter asked the impatient customer to stop using obscenities and that the impatient customer took umbrage and got physical.

Correct. He started the confrontation.

Here we disagree, voicing a request does not equal starting a physical confrontation.

Anyone is free to voice their opinion.

I just disagreed with you...have I started a confrontation?

Have I given you just cause to assault me?

 

[lovemymutts]

Sorry "real man", I'm not defending the savage that threatened to beat a man over what he said.

Just be honest. That's all I ask.

I'm being honest with you.

Trying to be clever and slick is stupid and fools no one...debate the facts or admit you cannot.

It is senseless attempting to debate a subject with someone who thinks it is OK to shoot someone who MIGHT punch him. You just get deeper and deeper into your stupid argument. Simple common sense tells you how wrong your thinking is, common sense is obviously something that you lack. If you think a person MIGHT hit you, either stand up to them with equal force or walk away. And walking away is not surrender, sometimes an asshole just is not worth your bother.

What sounds clever and slick to you is just a normal joke to the rest of us.

What if you're a 120 lb woman and some 250 lb psycho is threatening to assault you?

Well I weigh 137 (non gun carrier)and was attacked 3 years ago this week, by a man 5'11" 195 lbs trying to steal my purse in the parking lot of the Mall where I was finishing Christmas shopping.I was lucky enough to have my keys in my hand,scratched the hell out of his face and was able to hit the remote open button for the cargo area and he was met with 192 lbs of Mastiff responding to Angriff(attack/assault in german).He was still being FIRMLY held by my dog when the police showed up.He was taken to the hospital where he received 173 stitches to his head,shoulder and left arm
Moral of story-Never bite off more than you can chew. I know my dog doesn't.

 

[The Professor]

My understanding was that the shooter asked the impatient customer to stop using obscenities and that the impatient customer took umbrage and got physical.

Correct. He started the confrontation.

In my home state of Florida, that doesn't matter at all. There is only one question that is significant: At the time the defendant shot the victim, did he have a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury? If the answer if "yes" he was justified in using deadly force; if "no" he was not justified.

It is not the fear of injury but the reasonable fear of death or serious bodily injury that justifies the use of deadly force. The fact the the victim may have started the fiasco with a shove is immaterial from a legal perspective. In simple terms, if someone gets physical with you, you have the right to defend yourself with REASONABLE force. If he smacks you and you smack him back, he has committed a crime but you have not. If he smacks you and runs away you have no right to chase him and smack him, and if you do both of you have committed the crime of assault (obviously, if the aggressor ran away he is no longer a threat, and there is no longer a need for self defense).

But if he simply smacks you and you put a bullet between his eyes, both of you have committed a crime; he is guilty of simple assault and you are guilty of something a hell of a lot more serious.

Look, I know not everyone has the same opinion in this matter, but I am urging everyone to make sure they know the law before they draw their weapon.

 

[The Professor]

I think that ThinkProgress is not the best source one can use, but I will assume it happened like it has been reported.

I do not like this law, to me, it seems to mean that you can kill someone for a petty reason and get away with it.

It's not that easy to use this defense in my home state of Florida. Here is what I deem to be the most relevant part of the news article:

"Police, however, disagreed with Jock’s interpretation of the law and arrested him on charges of aggravated battery and firing a weapon within a building."

In order to use deadly force in self defense one must have a reasonable fear of DEATH or SERIOUS bodily injury at the moment the shots were fired. Merely being shoved around does not give anyone the right to use deadly force. This jerk will be prosecuted, and based upon everything I've read, he will certainly be convicted.

In my humble opinion this is not the same as the Zimmerman case. In that case, Zimmerman claimed Martin was on top of him hitting in the face and pounding his head against the pavement in an attack that lasted for several minutes. A claim could be made that Zimmerman had a reasonable fear of death or serious bodily harm; however, in the present case the circumstances clearly do not justify the use of deadly force.

The encounter between Zimmerman and Martin was under a minute.

I disagree. From the time the attack was first witnessed until the shot was fired was several minutes and it is unknown (except for Zimmerman's testimony) how long the attack had already been in progress when it was first witnessed. But that is immaterial to this thread, so I'll let it pass.

 

[BallsBrunswick]

Reading some of the responses in this thread has convinced me we need to get rid of this law. There are some dumb fucking people with guns out there in the world and they don't need any more of a justification for taking their idiocy out on innocent people.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Where were the gun nuts who say they stop murders?

Y'all better go buy yerselfs some more guns.

 

[oldfart]

I think that ThinkProgress is not the best source one can use, but I will assume it happened like it has been reported.

I do not like this law, to me, it seems to mean that you can kill someone for a petty reason and get away with it.

I live in Florida, my brother is in Texas. We have a big debate on which state is going crazy faster.

The purpose of the "stand your ground" law in Florida is clear from the pattern of its enforcement: since black people are clearly scary, anyone can shoot them anytime anywhere with impunity. But a black woman who shoots someone who is beating her up isconvicted of manslaughter. See, the reasons aren't really petty; it's just good old fashioned racism.

 

[lovemymutts]

I think that ThinkProgress is not the best source one can use, but I will assume it happened like it has been reported.

I do not like this law, to me, it seems to mean that you can kill someone for a petty reason and get away with it.

I live in Florida, my brother is in Texas. We have a big debate on which state is going crazy faster.

The purpose of the "stand your ground" law in Florida is clear from the pattern of its enforcement: since black people are clearly scary, anyone can shoot them anytime anywhere with impunity. But a black woman who shoots someone who is beating her up isconvicted of manslaughter. See, the reasons aren't really petty; it's just good old fashioned racism.

BRAVO OldFart !

 

[JKVegas]

If you live in so much fear and paranoia that you have to carry a gun to the Pizza place .................. something is wrong with your reasoning system.

I'm glad I don't live like that.

 

[ogibillm]

thought this article was interesting
Florida 'stand your ground' law yields some shocking outcomes depending on how law is applied - Tampa Bay Times

doesn't really look like this 'stand your ground' concept is good law.

• Those who invoke "stand your ground" to avoid prosecution have been extremely successful. Nearly 70 percent have gone free.

• Defendants claiming "stand your ground" are more likely to prevail if the victim is black. Seventy-three percent of those who killed a black person faced no penalty compared to 59 percent of those who killed a white.

 

[Politico]

If you live in so much fear and paranoia that you have to carry a gun to the Pizza place .................. something is wrong with your reasoning system.

I'm glad I don't live like that.

I am glad you don't just carry guns to pizza places too. That would be weird.

 

[Noomi]

Reading some of the responses in this thread has convinced me we need to get rid of this law. There are some dumb fucking people with guns out there in the world and they don't need any more of a justification for taking their idiocy out on innocent people.

The law is simply an excuse for people to murder other people and then claim they were defending themselves. There is this case as one example, and the recent case of a man shooting a teenage boy as he sat in a car.

 

[Noomi]

thought this article was interesting
Florida 'stand your ground' law yields some shocking outcomes depending on how law is applied - Tampa Bay Times

doesn't really look like this 'stand your ground' concept is good law.

• Those who invoke "stand your ground" to avoid prosecution have been extremely successful. Nearly 70 percent have gone free.

• Defendants claiming "stand your ground" are more likely to prevail if the victim is black. Seventy-three percent of those who killed a black person faced no penalty compared to 59 percent of those who killed a white.

That is why it should be scrapped.

 

[jwoodie]

Unless you are a Florida resident, why would you care about this? If you are a Florida resident, you can always vote to change the law if you disagree with it.

 

[MikeK]

Jock shot White twice in the lower torso with a .38. Then both men went outside and waited for the police.

??

I'd say that's a testimonial for the .45. Or at the very least for Hydro-Shock ammo.