Amend Florida's 'stand your ground' law, says lawyer for Markeis McGlockton's family

[PredFan]

Lawyer Benjamin Crump said Thursday that "it's still ludicrous" that a person can be an aggressor in a confrontation and then claim self-defense.

by Erik Ortiz / Jul.26.2018 / 4:48 PM ET / Updated Jul.26.2018 / 5:57 PM ET

McGlockton attorney speaks out against 'stand your ground'
Jul.26.201802:28

A prominent civil rights attorney on Thursday demanded Florida lawmakers amend the state's "stand your ground" law to prevent the person shown to be the aggressor in a confrontation from claiming immunity.

Lawyer Benjamin Crump joined the family of Markeis McGlockton, the 28-year-old father of three fatally shot by another man in a Clearwater parking lot, and argued there is enough evidence for state prosecutors to bring charges against the shooter.

"It's still ludicrous how you can claim you have fear for your life, yet you approach and start the confrontation with the individuals," Crump said at a news conference outside the Pinellas County Justice Center.

He also called for state legislators to take up stricter gun responsibility laws. Florida has some of the most lax gun laws in the nation, according to the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a California-based organization started by former congresswoman Gabby Giffords.
​

The problem is not with the stand your ground law, it's the fact that in order for it to work properly they're relying on what is essentially an "honor" system that is being abused by individuals who have failured to complay with the requirements for the lethal use of force they've employed.

Too many of the individuals involved in committing these offenses initated the confrontation I'm sure bolden by the fact that they were carrying. Additionally, several bad rulings set precedence that from all appearances is next to impossible to undo.

As I've indicataed before, they teach you what to do and say in the training classes required for obtaining a concealed carry permit (state "I was in fear for my life") but they also teach you under what set of circumstances you can legally draw your weapon without it being considered brandishing and what level of threat allows you to respond with deadly force. And picking a fight just so that you can pull your weapon and shoot someone is not a valid legal basis but more importantly, that's not self-defense. In many cases It's the cowardly act of any individual who is unable to distinguish between an actual threat and an injury to their ego.

Yeah sorry about your bully son getting killed, but fuck you stay away from my rights.

Not gonna happen AND you're stupid.

Oooohhh aaaaaahhhh, you are so smart there aren't you moron?

 

[beagle9]

When will stand your ground apply to black people?

In the minds of racists It's never been anything other than a law that allows them to shoot black people and get away with it.

In the minds of racist, but how many are racist out there ?? Not enough to say that the whole law or any law is completely bad because of who is bad out there. Yes laws are made for the good of man and woman kind, but with everything made it is somehow exploited by someone, somehow, somewhere.

The main thing is that when an injustice takes place, then somehow we have the smarts to correct it. Not sure about that anymore though.

 

[beagle9]

Yes. Notice the flag in my signature, it is the Florida state flag.

Yeah I would have never guessed the way you defaced it all

So what credentials allow you to be more knowledgeable than me on this subject? You do criminal defense work?

I have studied the "Stand your ground" law, as it does apply to me. It does not apply to you.

While the shooter was within his rights, that was wrong what he did.
You just don't shoot a guy who's backing away with his hands up.

Wasn't within his rights to take the shot was it ? Yes pull the weapon in order to stop the attack in which it did do that, but take the shot afterwards ?? I couldn't see it.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Time to close this thread. It has degenerated into little more than name calling and some that keep repeating thiings that have already been said and answered ad nauseum.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

can't someone with a pistol go around starting shit like this?
key point as made before, and you do also, most people would not confront people over petty crap
so, this guy is different...

He's no different than Zimmerman. Zimmerman thought because he was neighbor watch captain that he could play wanna be cop and actively patrol the whole place while armed which is a violation of the neighborhood watch regulations.

This guy was patrolling a parking space, in a parking lot on property that he doesn't own again, while armed.

I've had conversations with armed individuals who were more than happy to explain their philosophies and points of view of what their licenses allowed them to do to other people and some were quite frankly bordering on the insane.

Yes, having a weapon makes some people do things that they would not do were they not armed however the state of Florida used to have posted right on their website the following statement (paraphrased), I've tried to locate but have been unable to do so. They expect their CCW holders to read and understand the laws on use of force, escalation of force, self-defense, stand your ground, etc. in addition to any CCW specific laws:
"Having a license to carry a concealed weapon is not a license to use it"

You changed the facts. Zimmerman wasn't patrolling anywhere. He was on his way to Target. He saw an unknown black male acting suspiciously.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

You changed the facts. Zimmerman wasn't patrolling anywhere. He was on his way to Target. He saw an unknown black male acting suspiciously.

I haven't changed anything. The word patrol means "keep watch over (an area) by regularly walking or traveling around or through it". If he wasn't on patrol duty with the Neighborhood Watch when he initiated his pursuit of Martin that's just another violation he flouted

"In this program [Neighborhood Watch], it is clearly stated that you will not pursue an individual,” Smith explained. “In this new program, it clearly indicates that you will not carry a firearm when performing your duties as a neighborhood watch captain or participant."​

So if he wasn't acting in his capacity as Neighborhood Watch block captain what lawful authority was he operating under? The information he relayed to the police was inaccurate and false ("he's on drugs", "he's up to something") and practically everyone here is under the false impression that being black is analogous to suspicious therefore call the cops, follow (also known as stalking if you are not licensed by the state to surveill or follow another), profile and level false accusations to the 911 operator as a amateur, etc.

 

[MacTheKnife]

You changed the facts. Zimmerman wasn't patrolling anywhere. He was on his way to Target. He saw an unknown black male acting suspiciously.

I haven't changed anything. The word patrol means "keep watch over (an area) by regularly walking or traveling around or through it". If he wasn't on patrol duty with the Neighborhood Watch when he initiated his pursuit of Martin that's just another violation he flouted

"In this program [Neighborhood Watch], it is clearly stated that you will not pursue an individual,” Smith explained. “In this new program, it clearly indicates that you will not carry a firearm when performing your duties as a neighborhood watch captain or participant."​

So if he wasn't acting in his capacity as Neighborhood Watch block captain what lawful authority was he operating under? The information he relayed to the police was inaccurate and false ("he's on drugs", "he's up to something") and practically everyone here is under the false impression that being black is analogous to suspicious therefore call the cops, follow (also known as stalking if you are not licensed by the state to surveill or follow another), profile and level false accusations to the 911 operator as a amateur, etc.

Geez, Can't you ever get anything right? I would love to take you to the horse track. You have a sure fire ability to always be wrong. I mean I could get rich with someone like you...just by betting the opposite of what you do.

First of all Z was just a volunteer...he did not keep regular hours...he patrolled the area when he had the time. He was on his way to go shopping when he spotted Trayvon acting suspiciously...lolllygaggin about, looking in windows on a dark and rainy night...very suspicious as in like he was perhaps casing the houses looking for one to break into. They had been plagued by break ins.

So Z did what he had done many times....it was a standard operating procedure for him....see something or someone suspicious call the police.

He told the dispatcher Trayvon was acting like he was on drugs and in fact Trayvon was under the influence of marijuana as was proven by the autopsy. The authority he had was that of a concerned citizen who is reporting suspicious activity to the police. Folks do that all the time...you do not need special authority of any sort to report suspicious folks to the police dept. Whatever made you think that???? Also he did not relay any inaccurate information to the police. Also any citizen may follow a suspicious person to see what they are up to, no law against that but he only followed trayvon a short distance to try and see which way he had run so he could answer the dispatchers question..."which way did he go"

'Stalking' is a legal term and you do not know what that means. If anyone was stalking it was Trayvon. He ran away and then for whatever reason came back and began stalking George...hiding in the bushes and watching him and at the opportune time confronted him and the rest is history.

Legal definition of stalking: Stalking Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

You should have watched the trial.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Legal definition of stalking: Stalking Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

You should have watched the trial.

Two things - your link to the U.S. stalking laws has no relevence to the topic under discussion because they are governed in the same way that firearm and carry laws are, at the state level. You should be referencing the Florida stalking statutes.

The other thing is in addition to researching Zimmerman's background, listening to the 911 tapes to the Sandford police department including the one in which he makes a "fucking coons" comment, I've also studied videos of Zimmerman and he exhibits the same inherent biases that you do. I could pull your history of derogatory comments just here on US Message Board or even just on this thread about black people and use it to indicate your inherent bias of African Americans. Your view of the world seen through the bias of your lens warps your perception of us when it comes to your rights to engage us in ways that there simply doesn't exist a lawful basis for.

Answer honestly, if Martin had not been underage and prohibited from carrying and had instead been the party to stand his ground because some creepy guy was following him and he didnt' want to lead him directly to his home, would you be applauding Martin for having stood his ground and defended himself?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

I have studied the "Stand your ground" law, as it does apply to me. It does not apply to you.

While the shooter was within his rights, that was wrong what he did.
You just don't shoot a guy who's backing away with his hands up.

I agree with your assessment but you are mistaken about the Florida laws not applying to me. I've studied them as well so that I do not run afoul of them when I'm state. I've had a FL concealed carry permit since around 2002.

 

[cwise76]

Murder is murder. Jesus H Christ what the fuck is wrong with you motherfuckers? OPEN YOUR EYES

 

[MacTheKnife]

Legal definition of stalking: Stalking Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

You should have watched the trial.

Two things - your link to the U.S. stalking laws has no relevence to the topic under discussion because they are governed in the same way that firearm and carry laws are, at the state level. You should be referencing the Florida stalking statutes.

The other thing is in addition to researching Zimmerman's background, listening to the 911 tapes to the Sandford police department including the one in which he makes a "fucking coons" comment, I've also studied videos of Zimmerman and he exhibits the same inherent biases that you do. I could pull your history of derogatory comments just here on US Message Board or even just on this thread about black people and use it to indicate your inherent bias of African Americans. Your view of the world seen through the bias of your lens warps your perception of us when it comes to your rights to engage us in ways that there simply doesn't exist a lawful basis for.

Answer honestly, if Martin had not been underage and prohibited from carrying and had instead been the party to stand his ground because some creepy guy was following him and he didnt' want to lead him directly to his home, would you be applauding Martin for having stood his ground and defended himself?

Legal definition of stalking: Stalking Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

You should have watched the trial.

Two things - your link to the U.S. stalking laws has no relevence to the topic under discussion because they are governed in the same way that firearm and carry laws are, at the state level. You should be referencing the Florida stalking statutes.

The other thing is in addition to researching Zimmerman's background, listening to the 911 tapes to the Sandford police department including the one in which he makes a "fucking coons" comment, I've also studied videos of Zimmerman and he exhibits the same inherent biases that you do. I could pull your history of derogatory comments just here on US Message Board or even just on this thread about black people and use it to indicate your inherent bias of African Americans. Your view of the world seen through the bias of your lens warps your perception of us when it comes to your rights to engage us in ways that there simply doesn't exist a lawful basis for.

Answer honestly, if Martin had not been underage and prohibited from carrying and had instead been the party to stand his ground because some creepy guy was following him and he didnt' want to lead him directly to his home, would you be applauding Martin for having stood his ground and defended himself?

Legal definition of stalking: Stalking Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.

You should have watched the trial.

Two things - your link to the U.S. stalking laws has no relevence to the topic under discussion because they are governed in the same way that firearm and carry laws are, at the state level. You should be referencing the Florida stalking statutes.

The other thing is in addition to researching Zimmerman's background, listening to the 911 tapes to the Sandford police department including the one in which he makes a "fucking coons" comment, I've also studied videos of Zimmerman and he exhibits the same inherent biases that you do. I could pull your history of derogatory comments just here on US Message Board or even just on this thread about black people and use it to indicate your inherent bias of African Americans. Your view of the world seen through the bias of your lens warps your perception of us when it comes to your rights to engage us in ways that there simply doesn't exist a lawful basis for.

Answer honestly, if Martin had not been underage and prohibited from carrying and had instead been the party to stand his ground because some creepy guy was following him and he didnt' want to lead him directly to his home, would you be applauding Martin for having stood his ground and defended himself?

Here is the Florida law on stalking:




Stalking
Fla. Stat. § 784.048. Stalking; definitions; penalties. (2012)

(1) As used in this section, the term:
(a) "Harass" means to engage in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which causes substantial emotional distress to that person and serves no legitimate purpose.

(b) "Course of conduct" means a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, which evidences a continuity of purpose. The term does not include constitutionally protected activity such as picketing or other organized protests.

(c) "Credible threat" means a verbal or nonverbal threat, or a combination of the two, including threats delivered by electronic communication or implied by a pattern of conduct, which places the person who is the target of the threat in reasonable fear for his or her safety or the safety of his or her family members or individuals closely associated with the person, and which is made with the apparent ability to carry out the threat to cause such harm. It is not necessary to prove that the person making the threat had the intent to actually carry out the threat. The present incarceration of the person making the threat is not a bar to prosecution under this section.

(d) "Cyberstalk" means to engage in a course of conduct to communicate, or to cause to be communicated, words, images, or language by or through the use of electronic mail or electronic communication, directed at a specific person, causing substantial emotional distress to that person and serving no legitimate purpose.
(2) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of stalking, a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.

(3) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person and makes a credible threat to that person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(4) A person who, after an injunction for protection against repeat violence, sexual violence, or dating violence pursuant to s. 784.046, or an injunction for protection against domestic violence pursuant to s. 741.30, or after any other court-imposed prohibition of conduct toward the subject person or that person's property, knowingly, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks another person commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(5) A person who willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks a child under 16 years of age commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(6) A law enforcement officer may arrest, without a warrant, any person that he or she has probable cause to believe has violated this section.

(7) A person who, after having been sentenced for a violation of s. 794.011, s. 800.04, or s. 847.0135(5) and prohibited from contacting the victim of the offense under s. 921.244, willfully, maliciously, and repeatedly follows, harasses, or cyberstalks the victim commits the offense of aggravated stalking, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

(8) The punishment imposed under this section shall run consecutive to any former sentence imposed for a conviction for any offense under s. 794.011, s. 800.04, or s. 847.0135(5).

(9)

(a) The sentencing court shall consider, as a part of any sentence, issuing an order restraining the defendant from any contact with the victim, which may be valid for up to 10 years, as determined by the court. It is the intent of the Legislature that the length of any such order be based upon the seriousness of the facts before the court, the probability of future violations by the perpetrator, and the safety of the victim and his or her family members or individuals closely associated with the victim.

(b) The order may be issued by the court even if the defendant is sentenced to a state prison or a county jail or even if the imposition of the sentence is suspended and the defendant is placed on probation.

Florida law on stalking.

You are lying about Zimmerman he never made the comment you claim he made i.e. regarding ' -ucking coons'. This lilnk proves you lie: CNN Walks It Back: Oops, Zimmerman Didn't Say 'Coon,' He Said It Was 'Cold'!

Also the FBI did a complete investigation of Zimmerman's alleged racism and issued a formal statement saying that Zimmerman was not a racist. Though they would have dearly loved to discover he was a racist..to please obama and eric holder.

An outrageous lie on your part obviously meant to deceive.

Then you further attempt to distort what actually happened in the Trayvon incident by trying to play woulda coulda shoulda. If you had watched the trial you should know the evidence contradicts what you claim. Here is another News Flash for you ....the Stand your ground law was not used by the Zimmerman defense team. It was a simple case of Self Defense....thus you are wrong on all counts and should apologize to the board. Next time before commenting on the Trayvon incident study up and get the actual facts of the case.

Did you know "stand your ground" was not used by the Zimmerman defense?

 

[MacTheKnife]

Murder is murder. Jesus H Christ what the fuck is wrong with you motherfuckers? OPEN YOUR EYES

Murder is a legal term of which you obviously do not know the definition. Murder is Murder but no one in this incident in Clearwater, Fl. murdered anyone

Try and keep up with facts. We see too many comments on this case by people who do not know the facts nor do they know the law on Self-Defense. So pathetic. Run along now and let the big boys discuss this case.


Legal definition of murder:


Murder

The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Yes. Notice the flag in my signature, it is the Florida state flag.

Yeah I would have never guessed the way you defaced it all

So what credentials allow you to be more knowledgeable than me on this subject? You do criminal defense work?

I have studied the "Stand your ground" law, as it does apply to me. It does not apply to you.

While the shooter was within his rights, that was wrong what he did.
You just don't shoot a guy who's backing away with his hands up.

Wasn't within his rights to take the shot was it ? Yes pull the weapon in order to stop the attack in which it did do that, but take the shot afterwards ?? I couldn't see it.

First of all obviously you do not know the law on self defense though it has been posted on this thread numerous times. Folks like you that come on a thread and make comments without actually reading previous posts and comments only add to the confusion one sees so much of.

You are entitled to your opinion but the legal authorities after a very thorough investigation of the incident concluded that the use of deadly force by the white guy was justified. Thus no arrest and no trial. Case Closed

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I saw a video once of a black guy who broke into a womans home...she pulled a gun on the guy and what did he do even though he was 20 to 30 ft. away? --he charged her and she started shooting unfortunately for her she missed him. He took her gun and beat her to death with it.

Aside from the fact that you felt the need to identify the intruder as black, this case isn't even close to one of a home invasion in which the residence is occupied. If you find an intruder in your home there is no need to hesititate or have conversation. If he moves in any direction other than away where you'd essentially be shooting him in the back as he's fleeing, you'd be justified as the fact that he's breached your locked doors & windows establishes his threat to you.

I was trained that you don't wait until you find yourself in a situation to try to figure out what you should do, you practice and run scenarios and determine ahead of time what to do.

The point being that just because you have a pistol in your hand does not mean the threat will go away...that in fact the situation may get much worse.

All these Saturday morning quarter backs with hindsight think they know what the shooter should have done. Put any of these snowflakes in the same or a similar situation and they would most likely shit their pants and scream for their mamas.

If they had done just that, the victim of the shooting would still be here.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Oh, a mind reader now, huh?

The white guy claimed he was in fear of his life and why would he not be? He was a lone white guy in a black neighborhood known for its crime and violence, had just been violently attacked and had no idea what his black attacker might do next? The police conducted an intensive investigation and concluded the white man was in reasonable fear of his life and justified in using deadly force. End of story.

Pardon me, but I think it is about time that people know, if they haven't figured it out for themselves, that you are simply a racist son of a bitch. Why don't you just admit it in a statement without trying to justify your hatred?

My dear describing the nature of a neighborhood is not racism. You have let yourself get emotional for no reason. One should never do that in a debate. It is a sure sign you have lost the debate.

Shut up you racist piece of trash! No one wants to hear your ignorant attacks on people for the color of their skin.

Race runs much deeper than just mere skin color.

I know honorable and intelligent people from India that are much darker than the average negro.

Some people find the fact race is more than skin deep to be novel, when really I think it's more accurate to see races as being different enough that it extends to superficialities.

So different you can tell simply by looking. Yes, the differences dont stop at the skin but you can still tell by visual differentiation. There is no contradiction there, the presence of superficial characteristics which can be used to identify something does not mean the differences are just superficial. I repeat, you can tell by superficial characteristics but they arent the only differences.

Nice attempt to camouflage your racist beliefs!

FAIL!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Well, except for the fact that Gardner died of a heart attack. Don't resist and they won't kick your ass, causing you to have a heart attack.

He wouldn't have died of a heart attack if he could have breathed!!

He shouldn't have resisted. Period. End of statement.

Did he resist? I don't remember the details. But if he was resisting, was it because he told them he could not breathe? And what about the cop using deadly force that was against policy but he used it anyway???
Gardner should not have died. Manslaughter.

Gardner was a 300+ pound tub of lard. All he had to do was let them put the cuffs on. He refused at which time they took him to the ground. Gardner brought about his own death by stupidity.

I didn't like the Gardner take down at all, and worse the poor feller died as a result of it. Not good.

All he had to do was stop resisting. I can say it a thousand times and you cannot argue with the fact that it is true.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Oh, a mind reader now, huh?

The white guy claimed he was in fear of his life and why would he not be? He was a lone white guy in a black neighborhood known for its crime and violence, had just been violently attacked and had no idea what his black attacker might do next? The police conducted an intensive investigation and concluded the white man was in reasonable fear of his life and justified in using deadly force. End of story.

Funny, according to the store owner, uhh he frequented the store quite often, so either he wasn't scared of being in that neighborhood or somebody's lying. On top of that he was armed, and alledgedly was playing parking lot cop in according to the store owners account and/or knowledge of the guy.

And none of that allows the attacker to physically assault him....

Nor did it allow "nerd parking lot cop" to pull his piece out of rage, and then exact vengence on the guy for the push down.

Wrong cat with a gun if it made him some kind of nerd cop who thought the gun made him, instead of him making the gun in which would mean being in control of himself and his weapon in any situation if possible.

Rage....didn't look like rage on the video....looked like he was responding to a violent, surprise attack, where the attacker stepped forward while the man was down..... you can try to pretend this wasn't a justified shooting all you want....but the elements are all there.

There was no longer a threat when he pulled the gun. Had his attacker advanced again, I would not argue one bit that he would be justified in shooting, but the fact remains that the victim was shot with no threat happening.

 

[MacTheKnife]

The white guy claimed he was in fear of his life and why would he not be? He was a lone white guy in a black neighborhood known for its crime and violence, had just been violently attacked and had no idea what his black attacker might do next? The police conducted an intensive investigation and concluded the white man was in reasonable fear of his life and justified in using deadly force. End of story.

Pardon me, but I think it is about time that people know, if they haven't figured it out for themselves, that you are simply a racist son of a bitch. Why don't you just admit it in a statement without trying to justify your hatred?

My dear describing the nature of a neighborhood is not racism. You have let yourself get emotional for no reason. One should never do that in a debate. It is a sure sign you have lost the debate.

Shut up you racist piece of trash! No one wants to hear your ignorant attacks on people for the color of their skin.

Race runs much deeper than just mere skin color.

I know honorable and intelligent people from India that are much darker than the average negro.

Some people find the fact race is more than skin deep to be novel, when really I think it's more accurate to see races as being different enough that it extends to superficialities.

So different you can tell simply by looking. Yes, the differences dont stop at the skin but you can still tell by visual differentiation. There is no contradiction there, the presence of superficial characteristics which can be used to identify something does not mean the differences are just superficial. I repeat, you can tell by superficial characteristics but they arent the only differences.

Nice attempt to camouflage your racist beliefs!

FAIL!

It demonstrates that your claim of skin color having some significance is bogus. And, the fact I have to explain that to you means you lack the proper skills to decipher what was written.

 

[MacTheKnife]

The white guy claimed he was in fear of his life and why would he not be? He was a lone white guy in a black neighborhood known for its crime and violence, had just been violently attacked and had no idea what his black attacker might do next? The police conducted an intensive investigation and concluded the white man was in reasonable fear of his life and justified in using deadly force. End of story.

Funny, according to the store owner, uhh he frequented the store quite often, so either he wasn't scared of being in that neighborhood or somebody's lying. On top of that he was armed, and alledgedly was playing parking lot cop in according to the store owners account and/or knowledge of the guy.

And none of that allows the attacker to physically assault him....

Nor did it allow "nerd parking lot cop" to pull his piece out of rage, and then exact vengence on the guy for the push down.

Wrong cat with a gun if it made him some kind of nerd cop who thought the gun made him, instead of him making the gun in which would mean being in control of himself and his weapon in any situation if possible.

Rage....didn't look like rage on the video....looked like he was responding to a violent, surprise attack, where the attacker stepped forward while the man was down..... you can try to pretend this wasn't a justified shooting all you want....but the elements are all there.

There was no longer a threat when he pulled the gun. Had his attacker advanced again, I would not argue one bit that he would be justified in shooting, but the fact remains that the victim was shot with no threat happening.

Nonsense....that is just your opinion and we all know opinions are like arseholes...everyone has one.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Yes. Notice the flag in my signature, it is the Florida state flag.

Yeah I would have never guessed the way you defaced it all

So what credentials allow you to be more knowledgeable than me on this subject? You do criminal defense work?

I have studied the "Stand your ground" law, as it does apply to me. It does not apply to you.

While the shooter was within his rights, that was wrong what he did.
You just don't shoot a guy who's backing away with his hands up.

You assume the victim could tell the attacker was backing up.

I can see it. Why can't you or the shooter?

Can you at least agree that the victim was not advancing on the shooter at the time he was shot?

If so, there is no justification for the shooter. There was no threat.