Justifiable use of deadly force or not?

[Vastator]

What is undetermined is "who started "screaming" first", and what was being "screamed", and if both parties were screaming at each other. What is clear, is that the victim presented no physical threat to the woman. What is equally clear is that the victim never screamed at the man who initiated the assault.

Go to the one minute mark of the video.

And did you just say that someone screaming at your wife is OK as long as they don't scream at you? A man views it the reverse, just so you know

And if you assault someone for screaming at a third party; you risk legal action against you. Or even injury, or death. Just so you know. White knighting is not a legal defense for committing a crime.

It's not white knighting when you're protecting your own family. That's just stupid. So seriously, it's none of your business if someone is screaming at your wife in the parking lot. Your arguments are getting dumber and dumber

Whether you like my arguments or not is irrelevant. Making a shouting match your bussiness, is not a green light to commit assault. Ask yourself this. "Why didn't the assailant verbally confront the victim"? "Why didn't he place himself between the woman, and the victim"? "Why did he instead of other options, choose to assault the man from his blind side"? The video shows that his first course of action was to commit a crime against the victim.

Emotions run high when you see someone attacking your family member whether verbally or physically. She may have been innocent because she was told to pull into the parking space by her boyfriend or husband, and that could have added to his rage when saw the shooter verbally assaulting her about the parking spot.

No one attacked anyone's family member in this instance...

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The sheriff said it fell within the law ...
The prosecutor can try to make a case either way ...
You said no one understood the law ...
And I pointed out the sheriff had a better understanding than you do.

If you want to pretend that the prosecutor may or may not do something ...
Means you have a better understand of the law ...
Or that I was incorrect is saying differently ...

You are stupid ...
Now argue with some more "if's, could's and should's" dumbass.

.​

The sheriff said he passes along the evidence and it is up to the prosecutor to decide whether to press charges or not. He is not saying what the guy did was legal. He's saying that it isn't clear cut enough for him to go ahead and arrest him without the prosecutor deciding.

Holy shit. This isn't that complicated. Stupid? My degree is in this subject and I continue to study it. The fact you don't understand the difference between looking at evidence to decide whether a case can be made, and saying that the prosecutor can't rewrite the law, tells me the closest you ever got to studying law is playing Clue.

The Sheriff said he believes the shooting was within SYG laws and he would leave it up to the State Attorney.
It's going to be tough to convict the guy given the violence of the attack.

No. He said it can fit within the bookends of the law... which there are like 10 different situations that could fit the SYG defense, HOWEVER he said it isn't up to him whether the law actually fits the evidence, and it is up to the prosecutor to decide. Really folks, you are trying to make this into theoretical physics, when it is pretty simple.

"Gualtieri said the incident falls under the state’s ‘stand your ground’ law that allows someone to use deadly force if they believe it necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. He said his office will forward the case to prosecutors for a final decision."

You aren't saying the whole quote. You guys really love to cherrypick don't you? Can you be honest and let me know if you are going to be dishonest like that the rest of this discussion? It will save me time and I'll just ignore you.

Stop lying.

"Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri told reporters during a Friday press conference that Thursday’s shooting death of Markeis McGlockton, a 28-year-old father of three, is “within the bookends of stand your ground and within the bookends of force being justified,” the Tampa Bay Times reports.

“I’m not saying I agree with it, but I don’t make that call,” Gualtieri told reporters, adding that his agency will now forward the case to the State Attorney’s Office for a final decision."

 

[Vastator]

What is undetermined is "who started "screaming" first", and what was being "screamed", and if both parties were screaming at each other. What is clear, is that the victim presented no physical threat to the woman. What is equally clear is that the victim never screamed at the man who initiated the assault.

Go to the one minute mark of the video.

And did you just say that someone screaming at your wife is OK as long as they don't scream at you? A man views it the reverse, just so you know

And if you assault someone for screaming at a third party; you risk legal action against you. Or even injury, or death. Just so you know. White knighting is not a legal defense for committing a crime.

It's not white knighting when you're protecting your own family. That's just stupid. So seriously, it's none of your business if someone is screaming at your wife in the parking lot. Your arguments are getting dumber and dumber

Whether you like my arguments or not is irrelevant. Making a shouting match your bussiness, is not a green light to commit assault. Ask yourself this. "Why didn't the assailant verbally confront the victim"? "Why didn't he place himself between the woman, and the victim"? "Why did he instead of other options, choose to assault the man from his blind side"? The video shows that his first course of action was to commit a crime against the victim.

Emotions run high when you see someone attacking your family member whether verbally or physically. She may have been innocent because she was told to pull into the parking space by her boyfriend or husband, and that could have added to his rage when saw the shooter verbally assaulting her about the parking spot.

There is no such thing as "verbal assault" in Florida law. Nor are you allowed to commit violence against others for what you personally determine to be "verbal assault".

 

[beagle9]

Justified. If the guy on the ground was in fear of his safety.

So as long as your afraid, your justified in taking another mans life? Taking another mans life is dependent on your emotional state?

Easy to be am armchair quarterback in these situations but you weren't the one who was assaulted and you have no idea what your own reaction would be to being the victim of a violent physical assault.

Doesn't make it legal what the shooter done next.

 

[Lewdog]

Show me some examples.

4 Black Suspects Charged in Videotaped Beating of White Teenager in Chicago

That's nowhere near what I'm talking about, and I'm not going to sit here and go back and forth listing crimes by people from all different races.

 

[Lewdog]

The sheriff said he passes along the evidence and it is up to the prosecutor to decide whether to press charges or not. He is not saying what the guy did was legal. He's saying that it isn't clear cut enough for him to go ahead and arrest him without the prosecutor deciding.

Holy shit. This isn't that complicated. Stupid? My degree is in this subject and I continue to study it. The fact you don't understand the difference between looking at evidence to decide whether a case can be made, and saying that the prosecutor can't rewrite the law, tells me the closest you ever got to studying law is playing Clue.

The Sheriff said he believes the shooting was within SYG laws and he would leave it up to the State Attorney.
It's going to be tough to convict the guy given the violence of the attack.

No. He said it can fit within the bookends of the law... which there are like 10 different situations that could fit the SYG defense, HOWEVER he said it isn't up to him whether the law actually fits the evidence, and it is up to the prosecutor to decide. Really folks, you are trying to make this into theoretical physics, when it is pretty simple.

"Gualtieri said the incident falls under the state’s ‘stand your ground’ law that allows someone to use deadly force if they believe it necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. He said his office will forward the case to prosecutors for a final decision."

You aren't saying the whole quote. You guys really love to cherrypick don't you? Can you be honest and let me know if you are going to be dishonest like that the rest of this discussion? It will save me time and I'll just ignore you.

Stop lying.

"Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri told reporters during a Friday press conference that Thursday’s shooting death of Markeis McGlockton, a 28-year-old father of three, is “within the bookends of stand your ground and within the bookends of force being justified,” the Tampa Bay Times reports.

“I’m not saying I agree with it, but I don’t make that call,” Gualtieri told reporters, adding that his agency will now forward the case to the State Attorney’s Office for a final decision."

Read the last sentence. Again, do you not understand? It's not clear to the point where he can arrest him and then let the prosecutor take the case. He sends the evidence to the state for THEM to decide if there is a criminal case or not. The sheriff doesn't decide whether there is a case or not.... This is basic civics.

 

[OODA_Loop]

That's nowhere near what I'm talking about, and I'm not going to sit here and go back and forth listing crimes by people from all different races.

Show some instances of black people beating other black people up for political choices.

The point = different treatment due to race.

 

[OODA_Loop]

[ It's not clear to the point where he can arrest him and then let the prosecutor take the case. He sends the evidence to the state for THEM to decide if there is a criminal case or not. The sheriff doesn't decide whether there is a case or not.... This is basic civics.

If it is that unclear to prevent arrest its going nowhere.

 

[Manonthestreet]

I think even if he is not charged the law will be changed. You have an obligation as a CC owner to not start an incident. Standing your ground in your residence is one thing, this is quite another.

 

[Lewdog]

That's nowhere near what I'm talking about, and I'm not going to sit here and go back and forth listing crimes by people from all different races.

Show some instances of black people beating other black people up for political choices.

The point = different treatment due to race.

Why does it have to be for political choices? My examples I gave in this thread had nothing to do with political choices. One was over sock, one was over a coupon, and one was over sleeping on a couch.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Doesn't make it legal what the shooter done next.

Fear of great bodily harm or death does.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Why does it have to be for political choices? My examples I gave in this thread had nothing to do with political choices. One was over sock, one was over a coupon, and one was over sleeping on a couch.

The point is the difference in treatment due to race is multilateral.

 

[Lewdog]

[ It's not clear to the point where he can arrest him and then let the prosecutor take the case. He sends the evidence to the state for THEM to decide if there is a criminal case or not. The sheriff doesn't decide whether there is a case or not.... This is basic civics.

If it is that unclear to prevent arrest its going nowhere.

SHERIFFS DON'T DECIDE WHETHER TO INDICT SOMEONE FOR A CRIME! Jesus fucking Christ you people are dumb as a box of rocks.

 

[Vastator]

[ It's not clear to the point where he can arrest him and then let the prosecutor take the case. He sends the evidence to the state for THEM to decide if there is a criminal case or not. The sheriff doesn't decide whether there is a case or not.... This is basic civics.

If it is that unclear to prevent arrest its going nowhere.

The debate about “feelings” versus the facts shown in the video; amongst we here on this thread are a good indicator of how this might play out in front of a jury. Which could be a reason why the victim might not be charged...

 

[OODA_Loop]

I think even if he is not charged the law will be changed. You have an obligation as a CC owner to not start an incident. Standing your ground in your residence is one thing, this is quite another.

The shooter didn't instigate violence - he responded to violence.

 

[beagle9]

True, but we are supposed to be trained to overcome our emotions once the situation was under control, and the attacker disengaged, and even stepped back.

Retreat does not indicate the attack is over. Is someone knocked me to my feet that way I would suspect the attack to likely continue.

It is why it is good not attack others. You open yourself up to the response which may viewed as reasonable since you previously engaged an attack.

Retreat is an indication that the attack is over, and especially if your weapon caused the retreat. He knew (it appeared) that he was out of danger once pulled his weapon and the assailant retreated in his body language given, but the shooters emotions caused him to take the shot in which shouldn't have been taken at that point.

 

[Lewdog]

Why does it have to be for political choices? My examples I gave in this thread had nothing to do with political choices. One was over sock, one was over a coupon, and one was over sleeping on a couch.

The point is the difference in treatment due to race is multilateral.

No it isn't. For you to get examples you said it had to be based on political position.

The examples I gave were for dumb shit.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

The Sheriff said he believes the shooting was within SYG laws and he would leave it up to the State Attorney.
It's going to be tough to convict the guy given the violence of the attack.

No. He said it can fit within the bookends of the law... which there are like 10 different situations that could fit the SYG defense, HOWEVER he said it isn't up to him whether the law actually fits the evidence, and it is up to the prosecutor to decide. Really folks, you are trying to make this into theoretical physics, when it is pretty simple.

"Gualtieri said the incident falls under the state’s ‘stand your ground’ law that allows someone to use deadly force if they believe it necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm. He said his office will forward the case to prosecutors for a final decision."

You aren't saying the whole quote. You guys really love to cherrypick don't you? Can you be honest and let me know if you are going to be dishonest like that the rest of this discussion? It will save me time and I'll just ignore you.

Stop lying.

"Pinellas County Sheriff Bob Gualtieri told reporters during a Friday press conference that Thursday’s shooting death of Markeis McGlockton, a 28-year-old father of three, is “within the bookends of stand your ground and within the bookends of force being justified,” the Tampa Bay Times reports.

“I’m not saying I agree with it, but I don’t make that call,” Gualtieri told reporters, adding that his agency will now forward the case to the State Attorney’s Office for a final decision."

Read the last sentence. Again, do you not understand? It's not clear to the point where he can arrest him and then let the prosecutor take the case. He sends the evidence to the state for THEM to decide if there is a criminal case or not. The sheriff doesn't decide whether there is a case or not.... This is basic civics.

Than why didnt he arrest him and hold him until the SA made his ruling?
The Sheriff has said repeatedly that his actions were within SYG laws.
It's all over the fuken internet for Christ sake.

 

[OODA_Loop]

SHERIFFS DON'T DECIDE WHETHER TO INDICT SOMEONE FOR A CRIME! Jesus fucking Christ you people are dumb as a box of rocks.

Sheriffs do effect arrests. Not in this case due to the reasonable doubt of a SYG defense.

 

[Manonthestreet]

I think even if he is not charged the law will be changed. You have an obligation as a CC owner to not start an incident. Standing your ground in your residence is one thing, this is quite another.

The shooter didn't instigate violence - he responded to violence.

Someone harasses my wife......they better step back real quick before I get there. Mr do gooder civic duty guy was clear instigator...go to jail.....