Justifiable use of deadly force or not?

[Lewdog]

He's not in the position to make that final decision. That's obvious by the fact HE SAID HE IS PASSING THE EVIDENCE OVER TO THE PEOPLE HE SAID MAKES THE FUCKING DECISION. It's in his fucking statement that you even posted.

Sheriff makes the initial investigatory decision, In this case = no arrest,

Telling.

No it isn't telling. In LOTS of crimes people go to prison even though they were not arrested when the crime first occurred, especially in a case like this one.

 

[G.T.]

The steps backward the man clearly made as the gun was being pulled means the guy will be tried and convicted of Murder. Good, another scumbag off the street.

Cops didn't arrest - so probably not.

Because they planned to refer the case to the appropriate specialists in applying the Law.

 

[OODA_Loop]

You are playing right into the caricature libs paint of CC owners...….

Nope I mind my own funeral until you put your hands on me.

Which isn't what happened here...ooooops

Here the situation escalated by the hands on action of the deceased.

 

[G.T.]

He's not in the position to make that final decision. That's obvious by the fact HE SAID HE IS PASSING THE EVIDENCE OVER TO THE PEOPLE HE SAID MAKES THE FUCKING DECISION. It's in his fucking statement that you even posted.

Sheriff makes the initial investigatory decision, In this case = no arrest,

Telling.

No it isn't telling. In LOTS of crimes people go to prison even though they were not arrested when the crime first occurred, especially in a case like this one.

Them hanging their hats on that arent going to prevent the conviction. The man was backing away from the guy as the gun was being pulled - only a blood lusting oddball would think its THEN appropriate to pull a trigger and end a life. Folks with this mentality dont belong owning deadly weapons, theyre irresponsible, emotional and irrational

 

[beagle9]

What is clear, is that the victim presented no physical threat to the woman.

Ummmmmm……….no, that's wrong for sure: WE know that the shooter, the parking space defender, did present a serious threat to the woman, because he had a gun, and inside three minutes, he killed her boyfriend. He could of course have killed her. Now, she presumably did not know about the gun, although I would think if I lived in Florida I would assume anybody might be armed, especially a crazy. Yep, come to think of it, this may be the point of this thread: as America becomes more and more armed on every street, as in Heinlein's Beyond These Horizons, wonderful novel on this topic, I recommend it. We had better start assuming every crazy and maybe everyone else too might be armed.

I think I'll start doing that.

The act of being armed, whether known to others or not; is not by itself presenting danger to anyone. And as we see in this situation, the victim never presented his weapon when he verbally engaged the woman. So that discredits your assumption that his being armed presented a danger to her. It was only after being assaulted by a third party that a weapon entered the picture. And even then it never endangered the woman.

The fact is here, is that the shooters life was never endangered when he decided to argue the parking spot issue with a total stranger instead of just calling the law from his cell to report the violation. He took the law into his own hands, and now he will pay for that careless decision made. Worse he should have known better.

It isn't against the law to talk to strangers.

Talk ??

 

[Vastator]

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.

Sure as shit does. I carry concealed and I definitely am not going to inject myself into confrontations for this very reason

Anyone who would let possession a weapon influence their behavior, or demeanor; shouldn’t be carrying one in my opinion. Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. I prefer to conduct myself cordially whether I’m armed, or not. Because you never know if the person you are talking to is armed, or not. But that’s just me...

 

[OODA_Loop]

No it isn't telling. In LOTS of crimes people go to prison even though they were not arrested when the crime first occurred, especially in a case like this one.

Not really for ones where the shooter and deceased remain on scene and there is video showing what happened.

There was no doubt who did the shooting.

If no one gets arrested = telling.

 

[Lewdog]

The steps backward the man clearly made as the gun was being pulled means the guy will be tried and convicted of Murder. Good, another scumbag off the street.

Cops didn't arrest - so probably not.

Because they planned to refer the case to the appropriate specialists in applying the Law.

I've been saying this for 4 pages now. Sheriff's aren't lawyers who are able to interpret the law. They only can enforce the law when there is a clear violation. In a case like this all they can do is turn over evidence to a prosecutor who then interprets the law and decides whether to go for indictment or not. They literally can't understand that.

 

[Manonthestreet]

You are playing right into the caricature libs paint of CC owners...….

Nope I mind my own funeral until you put your hands on me.

Which isn't what happened here...ooooops

Here the situation escalated by the hands on action of the deceased.

here the guy didn't do as you said he should have......you admitted his guilt

 

[Circe]

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

First, it would be 'affect' not 'effect.'

No, effect is correct in this case. You really can't say sheriffs "affect" arrests. They either effect them or they don't arrest the guy. Sorry, you just hit my editor button.

 

[OODA_Loop]

You are playing right into the caricature libs paint of CC owners...….

Nope I mind my own funeral until you put your hands on me.

Which isn't what happened here...ooooops

Here the situation escalated by the hands on action of the deceased.

here the guy didn't do as you said he should have......you admitted his guilt

It is not unlawful to yell or harangue someone ? I commented as to my response = avoidance. I apply the old "Sticks and Stones" truism

 

[Vastator]

What is clear, is that the victim presented no physical threat to the woman.

Ummmmmm……….no, that's wrong for sure: WE know that the shooter, the parking space defender, did present a serious threat to the woman, because he had a gun, and inside three minutes, he killed her boyfriend. He could of course have killed her. Now, she presumably did not know about the gun, although I would think if I lived in Florida I would assume anybody might be armed, especially a crazy. Yep, come to think of it, this may be the point of this thread: as America becomes more and more armed on every street, as in Heinlein's Beyond These Horizons, wonderful novel on this topic, I recommend it. We had better start assuming every crazy and maybe everyone else too might be armed.

I think I'll start doing that.

The act of being armed, whether known to others or not; is not by itself presenting danger to anyone. And as we see in this situation, the victim never presented his weapon when he verbally engaged the woman. So that discredits your assumption that his being armed presented a danger to her. It was only after being assaulted by a third party that a weapon entered the picture. And even then it never endangered the woman.

The fact is here, is that the shooters life was never endangered when he decided to argue the parking spot issue with a total stranger instead of just calling the law from his cell to report the violation. He took the law into his own hands, and now he will pay for that careless decision made. Worse he should have known better.

It isn't against the law to talk to strangers.

Talk ??

Or raise your voice, or even “SCREAM!!!”, if you prefer. Take your pick. What you say, shout, or scream however can matter quite a bit. And exactly what’s being said is unclear to all of us. Unless your privy to a transcript which as of yet, hasn’t been offered up...

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Is this Saint McGlockton?

Markeis Mcglockton Mugshot | 06/25/08 Florida Arrest

 

[Manonthestreet]

You are playing right into the caricature libs paint of CC owners...….

Nope I mind my own funeral until you put your hands on me.

Which isn't what happened here...ooooops

Here the situation escalated by the hands on action of the deceased.

here the guy didn't do as you said he should have......you admitted his guilt

It is not unlawful to yell or harangue someone ? I commented as to my response = avoidance. I apply the old "Sticks and Stones" truism

Repeat your mantra all you want....you admitted he didn't follow it

 

[OODA_Loop]

I've been saying this for 4 pages now. Sheriff's aren't lawyers who are able to interpret the law. They only can enforce the law when there is a clear violation. I

Yes no clear violation - what more do you need > What else would the state attorney rely on but what was discovered at investigation by the sheriff ?

 

[G.T.]

The steps backward the man clearly made as the gun was being pulled means the guy will be tried and convicted of Murder. Good, another scumbag off the street.

Cops didn't arrest - so probably not.

Because they planned to refer the case to the appropriate specialists in applying the Law.

I've been saying this for 4 pages now. Sheriff's aren't lawyers who are able to interpret the law. They only can enforce the law when there is a clear violation. In a case like this all they can do is turn over evidence to a prosecutor who then interprets the law and decides whether to go for indictment or not. They literally can't understand that.

Its going to be an easy case for the Jurors. The testimonials that the guy was previously threatening to shoot people over the parking space...the testimony of the store clerk, the guy that felt the situation was so severe that he ran into the store to grab the husband....the backwards steps as the gun was on its way out

This guy will thankfully be off the streets soon.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Is this Saint McGlockton?

Markeis Mcglockton Mugshot | 06/25/08 Florida Arrest

Who will cure cancer now ?

 

[Circe]

Every woman wishes it WAS against the law to talk to strangers (us), be sure. This is why. The happy bullying hostility stuff, plus the sex approaches.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Its going to be an easy case for the Jurors.

But not easy for detectives or the Sheriff ?

 

[Vastator]

The steps backward the man clearly made as the gun was being pulled means the guy will be tried and convicted of Murder. Good, another scumbag off the street.

Not necessarily. We don’t know how the victims vision was effected by the assault. For all we know his vision may have been blurred from the impact, and was unable to read the actions of the assailant in the same manner as you. Additionally the perspective of the video is quite different than what the victim was seeing. His assailant still standing over him.
Nor can any of us say the assault was over. An assailant may step back to remove himself from his victims defensive range, or back up to get a kick in. Back up to buy time to produce a weapon of his own... the list goes on, and on, and on...