Justifiable use of deadly force or not?

[MacTheKnife]

I firmly believe in stand your ground but the man on the ground did not have to shoot...

He thought he did. And as the Sheriff said that's all that mattered.

How many times are you going to post that lie? That's all that mattered to the Sheriff. That is what he meant.

Well we know the shooter was assaulted and we know the shooter said he was in fear of his life. Key or essential elements to using deadly force in self defense. The only question is was it a reasonable fear and the law does require that. With the video as evidence I do not think a jury will convict the shooter even if he is charged and brought to trial. Which so far seems very doubtful. I do not think they will reverse their decision not to charge unless a lot of pressure is brought to bear aka riots, burnings etc. Look for trouble in St. Petersburg just down the road...lots of radicals down there.

 

[MacTheKnife]

So far.

Did you watch the press conference and the Sheriff categorically lay out the lawful action and the defense ?

No way a Sheriff makes those statements without prior consult of the State Attorney.

Really?

Did you sleep through the entire Trayvon Martin case?

If there had been a video in the Trayvon case there would have been no trial. Political pressure was brought to bear on local authorities...remember Obama and eric holder? The media was caught in lie after lie. Large segments of the public ate it up especially the minorities but in a court of law where the actual facts of the case were presented that was a whole different story. Funni how facts and the truth tends to over come rumors,distoritions, political pessure and the myth of black victimhood. Hats offs to the jurors, despite all the pressure and even death threats they got, they did an honest assessment of the facts and being honorable and honest folks they had no choice but to render a not guilty verdict.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Of course they don't share the same principle. No one ever said or meant that the Constitution should dictate interactions between citizens. It's about dictating to government how it will treat it's citizens. It's a limit on government power.

For example, government cannot restrict free speech. However, you can shit can your employees for what they say, break of with your wife, disavow your friends, criticize them on television. No one ever thought or meant that you have free speech from the consequences of other citizens. It's a horrible argument

What the **** do you mean they don't share the same principle? It's pretty simple. In a fair world, when someone does something wrong, the punishment they receive should be equal to the severity of the wrongdoing. The founders of this country knew that, that's why they wrote the 8th Amendment... however until the civil war the Federal government did not hold precedence over the way the states took care of things. Thus why AFTER the civil war they created the 13th, 14th, and the 15th Amendments that were referred to as the Reconstruction Amendments. The 13th outlawed slavery, the 14th created due process that extended the power of the Bill of Rights and Constitution to the state level, and the 15th Amendment which extended voting rights.

I said it has nothing to do with the Constitution. You shouldn't have pulled the Constitution into your point. The Constitution is not written to dictate actions between citizens, and it isn't a power for the Federal government to regulate interaction between citizens. The Constitution is a document that limits Federal power. You blew up your point by using the Constitution wrong

I brought it up for a specific reason and was VERY clear it had nothing to do with one citizen over another. Many Trump supporters brag about how important the rights given to people through the Constitution are. Well if you are against cruel and unusual punishment from the government, then it is hypocritical to say that when there is an incident between two citizens it is ok for one citizen to KILL the other over something as small as pushing them to the ground.

You don't get it.

Shooting to protect your own safety is not punishment for a crime

All I can tell you is that growing up in southwest Michigan is very different than wherever you're from.

1) We want to avoid shootings, you just want to have a clear justification. Being hunters and being around endless veterans, we take killing seriously. No one who went around armed screaming at people in parking lots would be supported, not at all. That's begging for a shooting

2) If we're going to stretch rule one, it's far more likely to happen protecting our family. We might let you embarrass us even and we walk away. But you threaten our families like this guy did and that we will always stand up for them We rate protecting our families ABOVE protecting ourselves. You don't consider protecting your family a factor or that it's even your job

Entirely different worlds. Whatever

Your response has absolutely nothing to do with my statement.

Shooting in self defense is not punishment for a crime is what I said

How the **** you got the idea that I want to shoot people from that statement is beyond me.

The vast majority of CCW permit holders will avoid situations that are potentially volatile

They don't pull their guns every time some asshole cuts them off or throws the bird at them even though you seem to think they do

There was no evidence that the assault victim in this instance threatened anyone the video of the police press conference confirmed that fact

I have stated my personal policy on carrying and using a weapon many times here and to sum it up I won't pull my weapon to protect anyone but myself or my wife I really don't give a **** about anyone else

 

[Skull Pilot]

He wasn't defending his woman when he walked up and shoved the man to the ground.... that was a level of violence that was completely over the top.......

The guy on the ground did not commit a physical act of aggression, and simply arguing with someone isn't cause for a violent physical assault.

I can't believe you people keep arguing that a man pushing you to the ground is an adequate justification for killing him ...

... but ...

... a psychotic man who could physically beat the hell out of your wife screaming at her in a parking lot over where you're parked is no threat and not a justification to do anything at all about it.

Here's a dollar, buy some perspective

Oversimplification

If a guy much larger than you blind sided you and laid you out on the pavement would you think your life might be in danger?

Would depend on what he did it for.. If I felt I deserved it, then I could take the hit no problem.. Of course I'm a former boxer in my youth, so taking hits would be no problem really. If I was in the right then I still wouldn't have shot him under the circumstances that transpired next.

Boxer or no if a much larger guy blindsided you you would not feel your life danger?

And it's easy to say what you would or wouldn't have done while sitting at a computer.

The fact is you have no idea what you would have done if it was you who was blindsided and knocked on your ass

Off work now, and no I wasn't sitting at a computer all day either.. To answer you in your post, all I will say is that "I got eyes don't I" ?????

Sometimes it don't take experiencing something to understand it, and seeing a video opens up many people's eyes in these cases. Same with the cops abusing their authority. The new age of compact video devices has changed the situation big time these days. Of course it matters upon who is interpreting the content of the video, but for the most part consensus is always met.

and you ignore the point of view of the guy who was blindsided and thrown to the ground

like I said it's easy to be an expert from a computer keyboard

 

[Skull Pilot]

I can't believe you people keep arguing that a man pushing you to the ground is an adequate justification for killing him ...

... but ...

... a psychotic man who could physically beat the hell out of your wife screaming at her in a parking lot over where you're parked is no threat and not a justification to do anything at all about it.

Here's a dollar, buy some perspective

Oversimplification

If a guy much larger than you blind sided you and laid you out on the pavement would you think your life might be in danger?

Would depend on what he did it for.. If I felt I deserved it, then I could take the hit no problem.. Of course I'm a former boxer in my youth, so taking hits would be no problem really. If I was in the right then I still wouldn't have shot him under the circumstances that transpired next.

Boxer or no if a much larger guy blindsided you you would not feel your life danger?

And it's easy to say what you would or wouldn't have done while sitting at a computer.

The fact is you have no idea what you would have done if it was you who was blindsided and knocked on your ass

Off work now, and no I wasn't sitting at a computer all day either.. To answer you in your post, all I will say is that "I got eyes don't I" ?????

Sometimes it don't take experiencing something to understand it, and seeing a video opens up many people's eyes in these cases. Same with the cops abusing their authority. The new age of compact video devices has changed the situation big time these days. Of course it matters upon who is interpreting the content of the video, but for the most part consensus is always met.

Who do you believe. Me, or your lyin eyes?

Yes, it's obvious in the video the victim was far enough away from the shooter, moving backwards and since he was unarmed he wasn't a threat. He just wanted the psycho away from his family. If the murderer hadn't been armed and screaming at people who park where it's none of his business anyway, this never would have happened.

The guy's woman and two kids were in the car and he had another son with him. Yet those princes of virtue say things like for him to get involved made him a "white knight" meaning he had no business interfering in a guy threatening his wife and two kids and he was "blindsided," again clearly presenting it as the guy accosting his family was none of his business.

The shooter set it up, initiated the aggression and executed him. It's murder one

Who was the first to commit an actual crime?

The assault happened first

 

[JLW]

The shooter engaged the victim's wife. The victim then shoved the shooter away. The victim was walking away when shot. This was nothing short of first degree murder.

 

[Skull Pilot]

In case you didn't realize it the guy that blindsided him and knocked him down is the one who started it

The other guy was doing nothing but yelling

So maybe people should not be assaulting people for yelling

If you push someone away from your woman, you shouldnt expect death. Thats some serious psychotic mentality which alludes to the fact that not everyone is responsible enough to take gun ownership seriously.

If you blindside someone and knock them violently to the ground you shouldn't expect not to be shot

Bullshit! The guy was obviously not injured, so he had no right to shoot his attacker.

The guy who shoved him was wrong, but he didn't deserve to die for it.

There is no stipulation in self defense law that you must be injured before you act

Tell me if a much larger guy blindsided you and knocked you to the ground would you not think you just might be in danger?

It's real easy to be an armchair quarterback

No armchair quarterbacking involved. You don't even rate a quarter.

When he was not injured the threat had ended at which point he drew his weapon and fired. He was not in danger at that moment. Had the assailant continued his attack, he would have been justified in shooting.

Have you looked at the voting? What percentage does it take before you realize that you are on the wrong side of the discussion?

There is no stipulation in self defense that you must be injured before you act

And I wonder if after being blindsided by a guy bigger than you and thrown hard to the ground if you might not feel your safety was in jeopardy

It's easy to be an expert from a computer keyboard.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The shooter engaged the victim's wife. The victim then shoved the shooter away, The victim was walking away when shot. This was nothing short of first degree murder.

He yelled at her that's all he did

and it wasn't anywhere near first degree murder since he fired AFTER he was assaulted and FYI He was the only person who was the victim of a crime here.

Yelling at a person is not a crime
Assault and battery are crimes

 

[Skull Pilot]

The attacker walked up to the scene and there was no physical contact between the victim and the attackers girlfriend...all physical constact was initiated by the black guy, and he pulled up his shorts as he moved forward....and as the gun came up he didn't put up his hands...

Again.... you guys really, really need to understand self defense and what happens in those situations..... you are making judgements based on a video that flattens the distance between the 2 men, from an angle that hides what the victim actually sees, and you are not the one on the ground looking at the attacker....

You don't know what you are talking about.

Um, no.

I know this guy lived your dream of shooting a darkie, but this was murder.

The store owner even said the shooter was deranged and harrassed his customers frequently.

And yet he never called the cops to have him removed from the premises

How did he know the shooter was even out there? Assume much?

Everyone obviously heard the guy yelling

and I'm sure the woman in the car had a cell phone

The store owner said he was there all the time but yet he never got the guy kicked off the property

Until the other customer came in and told him, how could he know the shooter was there?

I think your assumptions are getting in the way of you thinking logically.

pot kettle Mr armchair quarterback

 

[Skull Pilot]

Did you claim to know the distances between the people there too?

It's no hard to get a good idea of. There are enough visual cues in the video to determine that. Really doesn't matter if it was 4 feet, 10 feet, or 100 feet. Physics says that when he is backing up and his momentum is going BACKWARDS, after 3 feet the guy on the ground is no longer in danger enough to take the time to pull out his gun, wait a few seconds to point it, and then shoot him down in cold blood.

Try a little experiment. Take your fingers and touch the finger tips to the wall. Now back up until you are as far from the wall as possible but your finger tips are still touching the wall. Now start to back up and try punching the wall. I bet you can't.

momentum

He was moving very fast for momentum to be an issue

Plant a foot and he could change directions in the blink of an eye

Anywhere within a 6 foot circle is striking distance

Speed doesn't matter... HE WAS MOVING BACKWARDS. How can you possibly not understand such a simple physics principle?

so you're saying that he was incapable of changing direction?

He was still close enough to strike again but you don't know shit about hand to hand combat so you don't know how quick a person can change direction

He was going to strike again with a gun pointed at him? If he did, he deserved to be shot, but not before he made a threatening move!

He certainly was close enough to

but then again you know as much about hand to hand combat as you do anything else

and he was shot because he committed assault and battery and his victim felt his life was in danger

you weren't the one on the receiving end of that hit were you?

Shit the police press conference confirmed that there were no threats made by the victim of the assault.

 

[JLW]

The shooter engaged the victim's wife. The victim then shoved the shooter away, The victim was walking away when shot. This was nothing short of first degree murder.

He yelled at her that's all he did

and it wasn't anywhere near first degree murder since he fired AFTER he was assaulted and FYI He was the only person who was the victim of a crime here.

Yelling at a person is not a crime
Assault and battery are crimes

A few corrections. "Assault" is verbally accosting someone and that is a crime. That is what the shooter was doing to the victim's wife when the victim shoved the shooter.

But according to your logic, if a cad hits on another's wife, and the husband punches the cad in the nose, the cad can pull out a gun and kill the husband. That may be the law in Florida. It is however nothing short of legalized murder.

Additionally, in this case, the victim was clearly turning away. The shooter should be charged with murder, first and second degree, along with manslaughter.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The murdered was protecting his wife, pushed the offender to the ground, who pulled a gun and shot the other man who had made no further threatening moves toward him.

The victim was the woman the shooter was verbally assaulting.

It's murder.

Investigating law enforcement didnt think so.

Said it was self-defense. No charges.

If the battle of facts versus feelings, taking place on this board are any indicator of what a jury pool would look like... The case is a loser and no sane DA would bring it.

Looks to me like a conviction based on the numbers.

What numbers?

The numbers of votes at the top of the page! Looks like 83.7% would convict.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It's no hard to get a good idea of. There are enough visual cues in the video to determine that. Really doesn't matter if it was 4 feet, 10 feet, or 100 feet. Physics says that when he is backing up and his momentum is going BACKWARDS, after 3 feet the guy on the ground is no longer in danger enough to take the time to pull out his gun, wait a few seconds to point it, and then shoot him down in cold blood.

Try a little experiment. Take your fingers and touch the finger tips to the wall. Now back up until you are as far from the wall as possible but your finger tips are still touching the wall. Now start to back up and try punching the wall. I bet you can't.

momentum

He was moving very fast for momentum to be an issue

Plant a foot and he could change directions in the blink of an eye

Anywhere within a 6 foot circle is striking distance

Speed doesn't matter... HE WAS MOVING BACKWARDS. How can you possibly not understand such a simple physics principle?

so you're saying that he was incapable of changing direction?

He was still close enough to strike again but you don't know shit about hand to hand combat so you don't know how quick a person can change direction

He was going to strike again with a gun pointed at him? If he did, he deserved to be shot, but not before he made a threatening move!

He certainly was close enough to

but then again you know as much about hand to hand combat as you do anything else

and he was shot because he committed assault and battery and his victim felt his life was in danger

you weren't the one on the receiving end of that hit were you?

Shit the police press conference confirmed that there were no threats made by the victim of the assault.

I'll bet I have more experience hand to hand than you realize. You apparently are an expert in ass to mouth. You do not shoot someone for pushing you down and possibly hurting your boo-boo!

 

[Vastator]

The murdered was protecting his wife, pushed the offender to the ground, who pulled a gun and shot the other man who had made no further threatening moves toward him.

The victim was the woman the shooter was verbally assaulting.

It's murder.

Investigating law enforcement didnt think so.

Said it was self-defense. No charges.

If the battle of facts versus feelings, taking place on this board are any indicator of what a jury pool would look like... The case is a loser and no sane DA would bring it.

Looks to me like a conviction based on the numbers.

What numbers?

The numbers of votes at the top of the page! Looks like 83.7% would convict.

In a jury 87% means a hung jury, therefore... no conviction. And that’s not even taking into account the defense removing the “feelings” of the viewers of the video, leaving them only with the facts of the case, as they directly pertain to the incident; and the law by which they are to judge those facts...

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

So far.

Did you watch the press conference and the Sheriff categorically lay out the lawful action and the defense ?

No way a Sheriff makes those statements without prior consult of the State Attorney.

Really?

Did you sleep through the entire Trayvon Martin case?

If there had been a video in the Trayvon case there would have been no trial. Political pressure was brought to bear on local authorities...remember Obama and eric holder? The media was caught in lie after lie. Large segments of the public ate it up especially the minorities but in a court of law where the actual facts of the case were presented that was a whole different story. Funni how facts and the truth tends to over come rumors,distoritions, political pessure and the myth of black victimhood. Hats offs to the jurors, despite all the pressure and even death threats they got, they did an honest assessment of the facts and being honorable and honest folks they had no choice but to render a not guilty verdict.

The video is the reason why there will likely be a trial if there is any justice. I think most of those people who find no fault with the shooter should see their optometrist TODAY!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Investigating law enforcement didnt think so.

Said it was self-defense. No charges.

If the battle of facts versus feelings, taking place on this board are any indicator of what a jury pool would look like... The case is a loser and no sane DA would bring it.

Looks to me like a conviction based on the numbers.

What numbers?

The numbers of votes at the top of the page! Looks like 83.7% would convict.

In a jury 87% means a hung jury, therefore... no conviction. And that’s not even taking into account the defense removing the “feelings” of the viewers of the video, leaving them only with the facts of the case, as they directly pertain to the incident; and the law by which they are to judge those facts...

Your lack of knowledge of the law is only surpassed by your inability to reason that if you lock 12 people in a room, you will get a conviction.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I can't believe you people keep arguing that a man pushing you to the ground is an adequate justification for killing him ...

... but ...

... a psychotic man who could physically beat the hell out of your wife screaming at her in a parking lot over where you're parked is no threat and not a justification to do anything at all about it.

Here's a dollar, buy some perspective

Oversimplification

If a guy much larger than you blind sided you and laid you out on the pavement would you think your life might be in danger?

Would depend on what he did it for.. If I felt I deserved it, then I could take the hit no problem.. Of course I'm a former boxer in my youth, so taking hits would be no problem really. If I was in the right then I still wouldn't have shot him under the circumstances that transpired next.

Boxer or no if a much larger guy blindsided you you would not feel your life danger?

And it's easy to say what you would or wouldn't have done while sitting at a computer.

The fact is you have no idea what you would have done if it was you who was blindsided and knocked on your ass

Off work now, and no I wasn't sitting at a computer all day either.. To answer you in your post, all I will say is that "I got eyes don't I" ?????

Sometimes it don't take experiencing something to understand it, and seeing a video opens up many people's eyes in these cases. Same with the cops abusing their authority. The new age of compact video devices has changed the situation big time these days. Of course it matters upon who is interpreting the content of the video, but for the most part consensus is always met.

Who do you believe. Me, or your lyin eyes?

Yes, it's obvious in the video the victim was far enough away from the shooter, moving backwards and since he was unarmed he wasn't a threat. He just wanted the psycho away from his family. If the murderer hadn't been armed and screaming at people who park where it's none of his business anyway, this never would have happened.

The guy's woman and two kids were in the car and he had another son with him. Yet those princes of virtue say things like for him to get involved made him a "white knight" meaning he had no business interfering in a guy threatening his wife and two kids and he was "blindsided," again clearly presenting it as the guy accosting his family was none of his business.

The shooter set it up, initiated the aggression and executed him. It's murder one

Ignorant nonsense.

The legal standard is whether the person using deadly force as a means of self-defense perceived a threat to himself or others.

Your subjective perception is thankfully irrelevant.

 

[Skull Pilot]

momentum

He was moving very fast for momentum to be an issue

Plant a foot and he could change directions in the blink of an eye

Anywhere within a 6 foot circle is striking distance

Speed doesn't matter... HE WAS MOVING BACKWARDS. How can you possibly not understand such a simple physics principle?

so you're saying that he was incapable of changing direction?

He was still close enough to strike again but you don't know shit about hand to hand combat so you don't know how quick a person can change direction

He was going to strike again with a gun pointed at him? If he did, he deserved to be shot, but not before he made a threatening move!

He certainly was close enough to

but then again you know as much about hand to hand combat as you do anything else

and he was shot because he committed assault and battery and his victim felt his life was in danger

you weren't the one on the receiving end of that hit were you?

Shit the police press conference confirmed that there were no threats made by the victim of the assault.

I'll bet I have more experience hand to hand than you realize. You apparently are an expert in ass to mouth. You do not shoot someone for pushing you down and possibly hurting your boo-boo!

No you shoot them if you fear for your safety

it's easy for an internet bad ass like you to say who should and shouldn't do this or that but you weren't the guy who got blindsided by a much bigger person were you?

 

[Skull Pilot]

The murdered was protecting his wife, pushed the offender to the ground, who pulled a gun and shot the other man who had made no further threatening moves toward him.

The victim was the woman the shooter was verbally assaulting.

It's murder.

Investigating law enforcement didnt think so.

Said it was self-defense. No charges.

If the battle of facts versus feelings, taking place on this board are any indicator of what a jury pool would look like... The case is a loser and no sane DA would bring it.

Looks to me like a conviction based on the numbers.

What numbers?

The numbers of votes at the top of the page! Looks like 83.7% would convict.

Only sheep care about public opinion

 

[Skull Pilot]

The shooter engaged the victim's wife. The victim then shoved the shooter away, The victim was walking away when shot. This was nothing short of first degree murder.

He yelled at her that's all he did

and it wasn't anywhere near first degree murder since he fired AFTER he was assaulted and FYI He was the only person who was the victim of a crime here.

Yelling at a person is not a crime
Assault and battery are crimes

A few corrections. "Assault" is verbally accosting someone and that is a crime. That is what the shooter was doing to the victim's wife when the victim shoved the shooter.

But according to your logic, if a cad hits on another's wife, and the husband punches the cad in the nose, the cad can pull out a gun and kill the husband. That may be the law in Florida. It is however nothing short of legalized murder.

Additionally, in this case, the victim was clearly turning away. The shooter should be charged with murder, first and second degree, along with manslaughter.

Assault is physically accosting someone or threatening the police said there was no evidence of any threats made by the victim of the only crime that took place , that of assault and battery

it is not against the law to yell at a person
And he wasn't turning away he was facing the guy he assaulted if he was turning away he would not have been shot in the chest