Justifiable use of deadly force or not?

[strollingbones]

it does fit the stand your ground....the dude came out and just shoved the hell outta him....bad move...lets not forget that illegal parking is what started this all...illegal parking by the women now crying for justice...(illegal handicap parking is a pet peeve of mine) morally it was wrong, the dude was backing up....he knew he lost that battle he just didnt know how badly

 

[Lewdog]

okay let me explain the difference.....before you had to retreat as much as you could and then defend yourself in court....
now there is no mandate to retreat...if you feel your life is in danger...you may shoot and its up to the prosecutor to make the case that you had no right to stand your ground....now please tell me what we dont understand?

What you don't understand is, there is absolutely, positively, NO imminent danger of death to justify deadly force in this situation. NONE. Read the law.

Statutes & Constitution :View Statutes : Online Sunshine

After the man pushed him down, he did not continue to attack him. He didn't kick him. He didn't punch him. He didn't pull a weapon. In fact he did the opposite of presenting imminent danger. He BACKED UP. He put his arms down.

The guy on the ground drew his weapon, looked at the guy standing away from him with his hands down at his sides, and shot him. The sheriff's opinion doesn't matter. Black Sand failed to post the entire quote from the sheriff where he says, "It's not up to me." He is turning the evidence over to the prosecutor who will decide whether to charge or not.

 

[Lewdog]

it does fit the stand your ground....the dude came out and just shoved the hell outta him....bad move...lets not forget that illegal parking is what started this all...illegal parking by the women now crying for justice...(illegal handicap parking is a pet peeve of mine) morally it was wrong, the dude was backing up....he knew he lost that battle he just didnt know how badly

He shoved him because the guy got in his wife's face and was yelling at her. If ANYTHING, the guy that got shot and killed had a better stand your ground case, because the guy with the reputation of having an aggressive attitude, who was carrying a gun, was verbally assaulting his wife.

 

[strollingbones]

lets see what the courts say then

 

[strollingbones]

did you miss the part where i said it was morally wrong....now why did the dude resort to shoving him to the ground....instead of telling his g/f to roll the window up and move the car? violence does beget violence

 

[Circe]

So if you came out of a store and some guy was screaming at your wife in the parking lot, you wouldn't be worried for her safety? You're seriously claiming that? It was threatening, it wasn't just verbal.

So in this case from the video....my wife would be in Condition Yellow and have had the window up and her lawfully concealed weapon at the ready. She would not engage him.

I would have exited in Condition Yellow and made my way to the passenger side with my lawfully concealed weapon at the ready. I would not go hands on as this individual did for fear of deadly escalation.

We backup and leave.

Very nice solution -- thanx for the advice.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Nope. Not justifiable. The man that pushed him down didn't have a weapon. He wasn't even continuing to assault him. For stand your ground you have to feel not just a threat, but a threat for your life. Being pushed to the ground is in no way a threat on your life.

Second Amendment supporters should be saying that this guy goes to jail for murder... because it is actions like his that actually makes their stance look bad. The guy on the ground shot a man that had backed away from him even before he pulled out the gun, and had his hands at his sides.

There really is no argument in this instance. It's not even close.

Did anyone else find anything strange about the way the guy looked as he sat there on the ground? There is a lot of nuance that is sometimes going on when you already know what is going to happen but I got the distinct impression that he was not that frightened, certainly not in fear for his life, his body language didn't reflect this - he actually looked rather calm in my opinion almost as if he had the forethought to make it appear like he was weak or injured perhaps.

One thing I will say though is they teach you in the class you're required to take to obtain a FL CCW license to say the phrase "I was in fear for my life" if you ever have to use your weapon. It's like a mantra and I'm sure you all have heard the police state this repeatedly anytime they shoot someone, justified or not, because being in fear for one's life is the legal threshold that has to be met in order to legally claim self-defense. So whether a person is actually fearful or not they're taught in CCW class that these are the magic words to say to get you out of trouble.

They don't teach you to lie, but there are always those who will obey the rules just long enough to get what they're after and once they have what they want then they do things their own way. In my opinion, way too many of these stand your ground cases have provided legal cover to individuals who simply did not comply with the requirements of the license, the state's laws for self defense and/or the use of deadly force, yet managed to obtain legal absolution for what essentially amounted to pre-meditated murder. A perfect example of this, other than the Zimmerman case, is this idiotic ruling by judge Beth Bloom when a guy ran down a thief who had broken into his vehicle and stolen his radio and then stabbed the guy to death in the back. Judge Bloom ruled he was exercising his "stand-your-ground" rights and the attacker walked.
'Stand Your Ground': Miami Judge Decides Fatal Stabbing Was Self-Defense

 

[sparky]

After the man pushed him down, he did not continue to attack him. He didn't kick him. He didn't punch him. He didn't pull a weapon. In fact he did the opposite of presenting imminent danger. He BACKED UP. He put his arms down.

let his lawyer argue THAT in court

~S~

 

[Lewdog]

After the man pushed him down, he did not continue to attack him. He didn't kick him. He didn't punch him. He didn't pull a weapon. In fact he did the opposite of presenting imminent danger. He BACKED UP. He put his arms down.

let his lawyer argue THAT in court

~S~

What are you talking about? The dead guy isn't going to have a lawyer in court.

 

[Circe]

The boyfriend didn't kill the loon, the loon killed the boyfriend

Okay, you seem to be right. I am so confused.

So boyfriend came out of the store, saw his girlfriend being hassled and yelled at, shoved the crazy to the ground, and the crazy instantly shot him dead. Aaaaarrrrrrgh, that doesn't make nearly such a good story!

Okay, what I as a woman am learning from this is not to park in handicapped places illicitly (I never did anyway), don't hassle people who do that (I never did anyway), and don't keep my tablet on too long if I go into a movie theater: remember that guy who had his tablet on and the retired policeman shot him dead? Darn. That was a Stand-Your-Ground defense, some way. Shortly after that I DID go to a movie and I like to read on my tablet and was kind of worried about it, turned it off as soon as the ads were over ---

The main thing I learned was not to go to movies. "Why am I sitting in the dark with strangers? Bunch-a killers. Batman shooters, tablet shooter --" I think the whole country is learning to stay OUT of crowds, any kind of crowd situation at all, from Christmas parties that get shot up to country music festivals that get shot up --- I really think this is part of why Amazon does so well. Malls are a main target for insane shooters. Better just shop at Amazon. Even supermarkets are dangerous, like the one where this incident happened! Just yesterday a crazy took dozens of hostages in a Trader Joe's, killed several people (women, of course: almost all these guys preferentially shoot women).

 

[OODA_Loop]

Nope. Not justifiable. The man that pushed him down didn't have a weapon. He wasn't even continuing to assault him. For stand your ground you have to feel not just a threat, but a threat for your life. Being pushed to the ground is in no way a threat on your life.

Head trauma is nothing to be taken lightly

A simple bump on the head can kill you – White Coat Underground

 

[kaz]

If you start screaming at a woman in a parking lot while her boyfriend is in the shop while you're armed, you don't belong around guns

It depends on the situation there sport. I agree in principle, but so long as you don't pull the weapon, then what is your beef?

Gun safety starts with avoiding dangerous situations where possible. You don't create a dangerous situation where there could be a shooting. If you're screaming at a woman and her boyfriend is coming out, that right there is setting up a dangerous situation. I mean duh. How do you not get that?

I'm disappointed in all of you who apparently don't view being armed in public as a responsiblity. Particularly 2aguy who is a longtime ally in arguing 2nd amendment rights. What about try NOT to use your gun eludes you?

Armed, or not one is obligated to act responsibly in public. It’s a good idea to do the same in private as well. As to what constitutes him screaming at her... That’s subjective, and we have no idea if she was “screaming” at him in kind. Nor who “screamed” first.
As for doing this while her boyfriend was coming out of the store... It’s unlikely that the victim knew he was being approached by her boyfriend. Otherwise he would likely have made some move to defend himself against an approaching threat. As for the assailaints moral high ground... Muh dicking for your girlfriend gets no traction. He could have just as easily displayed his virtue by telling the driver not to park in the handicapped spot.
And for those bleeding hearts who assume the assailants location indicated the assault was over... You‘re merely speculating. The assault is only over when the assailant decides its over; or when he’s rendered incapable of furthering the assault. The victim made the choice in this case, by opting for choice two.

Yes, and by repeatedly being aggressive and armed, death was the eventual outcome, which is why it was murder. That isn't how you act when you're armed

Being armed has nothing to do with how you should act.

It only does for responsible gun owners, not for you. The guy set up a loop where he was armed and the aggressor and was going to kill anyone who fought back. Then he kept repeating it until he got what he wanted. That's murder one

 

[kaz]

It depends on the situation there sport. I agree in principle, but so long as you don't pull the weapon, then what is your beef?

Gun safety starts with avoiding dangerous situations where possible. You don't create a dangerous situation where there could be a shooting. If you're screaming at a woman and her boyfriend is coming out, that right there is setting up a dangerous situation. I mean duh. How do you not get that?

I'm disappointed in all of you who apparently don't view being armed in public as a responsiblity. Particularly 2aguy who is a longtime ally in arguing 2nd amendment rights. What about try NOT to use your gun eludes you?

Armed, or not one is obligated to act responsibly in public. It’s a good idea to do the same in private as well. As to what constitutes him screaming at her... That’s subjective, and we have no idea if she was “screaming” at him in kind. Nor who “screamed” first.
As for doing this while her boyfriend was coming out of the store... It’s unlikely that the victim knew he was being approached by her boyfriend. Otherwise he would likely have made some move to defend himself against an approaching threat. As for the assailaints moral high ground... Muh dicking for your girlfriend gets no traction. He could have just as easily displayed his virtue by telling the driver not to park in the handicapped spot.
And for those bleeding hearts who assume the assailants location indicated the assault was over... You‘re merely speculating. The assault is only over when the assailant decides its over; or when he’s rendered incapable of furthering the assault. The victim made the choice in this case, by opting for choice two.

Yes, and by repeatedly being aggressive and armed, death was the eventual outcome, which is why it was murder. That isn't how you act when you're armed

Being armed has nothing to do with how you should act.

?

He's pretty sick, isn't he?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Maybe this will help - even when a person is assaultive but without serious bodily harm, the appropriate response is "non-lethal"

 

[OODA_Loop]

It only does for responsible gun owners, not for you. The guy set up a loop where he was armed and the aggressor and was going to kill anyone who fought back. Then he kept repeating it until he got what he wanted. That's murder one

You don't really know that

 

[kaz]

I guess we just come from very different cultures. I grew up outside Kalamazoo, Michigan (hence "kaz"). Once you left the city in the 70s, it was country. I was taught that carrying is a responsibility. You avoid conflict, you don't create it. Screaming at a woman then capping her boyfriend when he tried to protect her wouldn't fly. Those are my values

I wouldnt have said anything either.
But words dont give you the right to attack someone.

When you're screaming at a woman in the parking lot waiving your hands, that isn't just words. So seriously, if that happened to your wife, you'd say that? They're just words? Or would you have been very concerned for your wife's safety?

And regardless, when someone shoves you and backs away, that doesn't give you the right to shoot them.

Again, where I'm from, if I'd been armed and screaming at the woman, my community would stop supporting what I did right there. They'd have said I had already violated gun safety standards and created a hostile situation, which you don't do when armed. Then I get shoved by her boyfriend and I gank him? No way, it's not right.

At least not where I was raised

Technically, on the video, the guy advances and only retreats, slightly when the gun is pointed at him..... but between the backing up and shooting there isn't time, and he got shot..... Again, the guy violently attacked the victim....

Bullshit. I’d bet you a million bucks he’s going to prison. I’ll bet a jury will agree too

Past history doesn't matter when you have the video of the attacker initiating the violent attack..... He may have been shouting at the woman, he didn't initiate the violence....

So someone threatening your family is not initiating violence, got it

 

[OODA_Loop]

Maybe this will help - even when a person is assaultive but without serious bodily harm, the appropriate response is "non-lethal"

This is for law enforcement purposes.

 

[kaz]

It only does for responsible gun owners, not for you. The guy set up a loop where he was armed and the aggressor and was going to kill anyone who fought back. Then he kept repeating it until he got what he wanted. That's murder one

You don't really know that

You've obviously never taken a gun safety course

 

[OODA_Loop]

So someone threatening your family is not initiating violence, got it

Do they have means immediately available to commit great bodily harm or death while threatening ?

 

[kaz]

So if you came out of a store and some guy was screaming at your wife in the parking lot, you wouldn't be worried for her safety? You're seriously claiming that? It was threatening, it wasn't just verbal.

So in this case from the video....my wife would be in Condition Yellow and have had the window up and her lawfully concealed weapon at the ready. She would not engage him.

I would have exited in Condition Yellow and made my way to the passenger side with my lawfully concealed weapon at the ready. I would not go hands on as this individual did for fear of deadly escalation.

We backup and leave.

Very nice solution -- thanx for the advice.

On the other hand, he'd scream at someone's woman and cap him if he pushed him