Justifiable use of deadly force or not?

[beagle9]

True, but the case is going to be looked at in the narrow time zone where the push was made, the gun was drawn, the reaction of the pusher after the gun was drawn, the shot being taken, and the history of the shooter.

I’m not so sure the history of the shooter is as strong a bit of evidence as some might think. Because he was still demonstrably assaulted, and the victim of a crime. It would be like holding a rape victims past against her, just because she was a prostitute. Even douchebags, and scumbags can be victims of crime.

Yes true, but the details of this case might force the issue of looking at the shooters past just to make sure that he wasn't looking for a fight or stalking this store parking lot for that fight.

It may. But his past isn’t likely to be proven to have triggered his own assault.

No his current actions did a great job enough of that. No past required...

Victim blaming now? Maybe the rape victim should have dressed less provocatively as well, eh?

Your Demon-crat is showing, best cover up.

 

[beagle9]

Here is a video that shows more clearly WHEN the shot was fired, and is in real time and so you can clearly determine theres a good 5 or so full seconds of BACKING UP and NO FURTHER CONTACT.

Anyone thinking this shooting is justified does not belong owning a gun, holy shit.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost...-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/amp/

‘Backing up’ doesn’t mean the threat has ended, or that the person being attacked is ‘obligated’ to believe the threat no longer exists – the person attacked may continue to reasonably believe that the threat still exists.

Had the individual who pushed the shooter to the ground turned and ran from the incident, at that point shooting would likely not be justified.

Florida law maintains a very low standard as to what justifies self-defense, even a “scintilla” of evidence will satisfy that standard, regardless how improbable or extremely weak the self-defense theory might be.

And yet again, Florida law doesn’t require physical contact to warrant the use of deadly force as a means of self-defense.

To hell with living in Florida then... Must be the set up capital of the nation, where as if someone wants someone dead then down there in Florida you have the means to justify it.

 

[beagle9]

[the details of this case might force the issue of looking at the shooters past just to make sure that he wasn't looking for a fight or stalking this store parking lot for that fight.

Which he was: we know for sure of two other such incidents and I bet a bunch of people come out and tell other tales of a guy looking desperately for someone to kill.

What about that? It's a problem with the Florida law. It is clear this guy was hunting for fights, repeatedly at this unlucky convenience store and there was the road rage gun-pulling too. Is there some way to stop this with adjustment to the law, or what? We've seen this before: middle-aged or even elderly guys furiously looking for someone to fight and kill. This is getting close to that (Florida! What is it about Florida??) incident where Nikolas Cruz was reported and reported and reported but nobody ever stopped him till he killed a bunch of high school students. This guy also has a lot of red flags and that road rage case --- if he hadn't pulled a gun on the other driver, why would the driver have reported that to the police? It was one person's word against the crazy guy's categorical denial, but now we have every reason to suppose he dunnit.

We watched Tombstone the other night. Alcohol and pride issues and general cussedness and grumpiness were why people shot each other --- it wasn't really about self-defense. I'd like the whole country not to go that way.

No. That isn’t clear, and again... is conjecture. Even if it were true; there is no way to prove it. The defense can however prove that the victims being assaulted,was the first criminal act shown in the video. The self defense claim will begin there. It’s a loser in court for the prosecution.

Regardless, a push didn't deserve death period, and it applies in this case.

 

[OODA_Loop]

To hell with living in Florida then... Must be the set up capital of the nation, where as if someone wants someone dead then down there in Florida you have the means to justify it.

I agree do not move to Florida.

Reality is had McGlocklen not gone hands on, just like Treyvon Martin, they would still be alive.

 

[skews13]

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

Justifiable use of deadly force or not?

In the link below is an article with a video that shows a "stand your ground" incident in Clearwater Florida. A women illegally parked in a handicapped spot and got into an argument with a man who confronted her about it. The women's boyfriend, who was in the store at the time, comes out to see the argument and pushes the man to the ground. With the man on the ground he pulls out a gun and aims at the man who assaulted him. The man who committed the assault then backs up. Despite backing away, the man fires his gun anyways hitting the man in the chest. The injured man then runs into the store where he collapses on the ground and dies in front of his five your old son.


My opinion:

Both the women and her boyfriend committed illegal acts which led to the incident. But, I do not feel the man who was assaulted was justified in shooting his attacker. The Attacker had backed off after the gun was pulled. Parking in handicap spot and pushing someone to the ground or both illegal, but punishment for those actions would never warrant the death penalty. Had the attacker continued to assault or move towards the man pushed to the ground, then you might have a case where shooting the gun might be warranted. But that is not what happened. The attacker backed away after the gun was pulled. Then he was shot and killed, dying in front of his five year old son in the store. The man has two other children as well.

I've seen people get pushed to the ground like that in the school yard. Its wrong, you have a right to defend yourself. But in this case, taking another mans life was NOT justified. Call the police and the film of the incident would be enough evidence to punish the attacker in an appropriate manner.

The article and video of the incident are in the link below:

https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/

media link from youtube:

You're taking everything into account except for the fact that the guy that got shot was defending his girlfriend, who was being threatened by an armed man. Where is her self defense rights?

Where are the self defense rights of the guy that got shot?

So you only have self defense rights if you re armed with a gun?

It's now time for an organized effort to deal with not only the coward who attacks women, and shoots un armed people, which where I come from we call cowards.

Which apparently is a label that can accurately be applied to a large portion of gun nut America, but also stand your ground laws.

If that was a family member of mine that was shot. I'm laying in wait for that coward, and I'm going to use Floridas own law against itself.

I'm going to be parking in that spot when that coward is in the neighborhood just knowing he's going to walk up to the drivers side window.

Know what I mean?

 

[beagle9]

The defense can however prove that the victims being assaulted,was the first criminal act shown in the video. The self defense claim will begin there. It’s a loser in court for the prosecution.

The whole point of the movie and tourist attraction that is Tombstone, Arizona is that the town was full of Michael Drejkas. Crazies and drunks looking all the time for someone to kill, because they could, freely, and because they were just mean.

That Drejka was one quick-draw expert. I never saw any reaction so fast. See guy, shoot guy. We are already seeing lots and lots of mass killings and shooting sprees that happen simply because someone wants to do that; they want to kill. This guy was going around looking for people to exasperate enough to knock him down so he could shoot them ha-ha "legally," and wow, he didn't hesitate.

I don't think Tombstone is a good direction for what's left of America. Wyatt Earp WAS trying to do something positive there, after all.

There is nothing indicated in the video to suggest that the victim was drunk. Furthermore, the assailants, nor the spectators estimation of the victims ability to defend himself is of little consequence. If the assailant thought he could get away with his attack, through his own ignorance... That’s on him, and him alone. It isn’t a victims job to educate an attacker about how able they are to defend themselves. Often times that’s considered nothing more than shit talking. The assailant showed his ass, and got his ticket punched. Too bad for Jonny would-be-badass. He made a fatal miscalculation.

Adding ones family to the mix, what would you have done ? Do you think you would deserve to die for pushing a man down if he was being an total butthead to your wife, girlfriend or whatever she was to him ?? I mean we don't know what this guy was saying, but hopefully someone does if can't go on the lady's testimony. Were their kids in the car as well ??

 

[OODA_Loop]

You're taking everything into account except for the fact that the guy that got shot was defending his girlfriend, who was being threatened by an armed man. Where is her self defense rights?

Where are the self defense rights of the guy that got shot?

She was verbally attacked no right to lethal self-defense.

Guy that got shot initiated a hands on attack Thats what got him shot, No right to lethal self-defense.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Adding ones family to the mix, what would you have done ? Do you think you would deserve to die for pushing a man down if he was being an total butthead to your wife, girlfriend or whatever she was to him ??

I look in my toolbox from Kindergarten and keep my hands to myself while I leave the area.

 

[Circe]

Were their kids in the car as well ??

Two little kids in the car with Mom and the other, a five-year-old, in the store with Dad. This is a nasty story.

 

[Vastator]

It’s called aiming. Would you have preferred a blind mag dump?

We have nothing left to talk about. If he can see to aim, he can see a man clearly backing away, as can you.

Till you’re on your back, and possibly concussed, while fearing for your own life; that’s all speculation...

Fell sideways hitting upon his side and shoulder. Head didn't hit which is how he retained his alertness to draw his weapon, but the shot shouldn't have been taken. That's the delema here.

There is no way you can possibly assess the extent of the victims injury, or state of mind from watching the OP video.

Just like all the other projection here right ?? Good grief.

Specifics... I’m not a mind reader. Neither are you....

 

[beagle9]

You're taking everything into account except for the fact that the guy that got shot was defending his girlfriend, who was being threatened by an armed man. Where is her self defense rights?

Where are the self defense rights of the guy that got shot?

She was verbally attacked no right to lethal self-defense.

Guy that got shot initiated a hands on attack Thats what got him shot, No right to lethal self-defense.

Hands on attack that wasn't lethal is returned with a shot to the chest, and this after the guy started the entire event from something as stupid as telling a complete stranger that she and her kids shouldn't be parking in the handicap parking spot ???? Him being a stranger with a gun ?? Like I said before, what if he would have thought that she reached for a gun, would he had shot her in front of her kids under the stand your ground for your handicap parking spot law. ????? That's what he turned stand your ground law into.

 

[Lewdog]

You're taking everything into account except for the fact that the guy that got shot was defending his girlfriend, who was being threatened by an armed man. Where is her self defense rights?

Where are the self defense rights of the guy that got shot?

She was verbally attacked no right to lethal self-defense.

Guy that got shot initiated a hands on attack Thats what got him shot, No right to lethal self-defense.

Well that's good because the self-defense used on him wasn't lethal. He was just pushed down.

 

[beagle9]

We have nothing left to talk about. If he can see to aim, he can see a man clearly backing away, as can you.

Till you’re on your back, and possibly concussed, while fearing for your own life; that’s all speculation...

Fell sideways hitting upon his side and shoulder. Head didn't hit which is how he retained his alertness to draw his weapon, but the shot shouldn't have been taken. That's the delema here.

There is no way you can possibly assess the extent of the victims injury, or state of mind from watching the OP video.

Just like all the other projection here right ?? Good grief.

Specifics... I’m not a mind reader. Neither are you....

No, but we ain't blind either.

 

[Lewdog]

You're taking everything into account except for the fact that the guy that got shot was defending his girlfriend, who was being threatened by an armed man. Where is her self defense rights?

Where are the self defense rights of the guy that got shot?

She was verbally attacked no right to lethal self-defense.

Guy that got shot initiated a hands on attack Thats what got him shot, No right to lethal self-defense.

Hands on attack that wasn't lethal is returned with a shot to the chest, and this after the guy started the entire event from something as stupid as telling a complete stranger that she and her kids shouldn't be parking in the handicap parking spot ???? A stranger with a gun ?? Like I said before, what if he would have thought that she reached for a gun, would he had shot her in front of her kids under the stand your ground for your handicap parking spot ?????

It's obvious no matter what we say, a few people in this thread don't care. They have their obvious reasons, and one of which isn't common sense.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Well that's good because the self-defense used on him wasn't lethal. He was just pushed down.

And under reasonable fear of great bodily injury or death. Its why the cops didn't arrest. There are no charges filed.

 

[OODA_Loop]

It's obvious no matter what we say, a few people in this thread don't care. They have their obvious reasons, and one of which isn't common sense.

Dont care about what exactly ?

 

[Vastator]

I’m not so sure the history of the shooter is as strong a bit of evidence as some might think. Because he was still demonstrably assaulted, and the victim of a crime. It would be like holding a rape victims past against her, just because she was a prostitute. Even douchebags, and scumbags can be victims of crime.

Yes true, but the details of this case might force the issue of looking at the shooters past just to make sure that he wasn't looking for a fight or stalking this store parking lot for that fight.

It may. But his past isn’t likely to be proven to have triggered his own assault.

No his current actions did a great job enough of that. No past required...

Victim blaming now? Maybe the rape victim should have dressed less provocatively as well, eh?

Your Demon-crat is showing, best cover up.

You're taking everything into account except for the fact that the guy that got shot was defending his girlfriend, who was being threatened by an armed man. Where is her self defense rights?

Where are the self defense rights of the guy that got shot?

She was verbally attacked no right to lethal self-defense.

Guy that got shot initiated a hands on attack Thats what got him shot, No right to lethal self-defense.

Well that's good because the self-defense used on him wasn't lethal. He was just pushed down.

Because the assault on him wasn’t committed in defense of “self”. Are you even trying to be serious?

 

[Lewdog]

Well that's good because the self-defense used on him wasn't lethal. He was just pushed down.

And under reasonable fear of great bodily injury or death. Its why the cops didn't arrest. There are no charges filed.

What fear? Fear of a Black person?

 

[beagle9]

Well that's good because the self-defense used on him wasn't lethal. He was just pushed down.

And under reasonable fear of great bodily injury or death. Its why the cops didn't arrest. There are no charges filed.

This needs to have a hearing and a fact finding investigation.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Assaulting a smaller weaker person is.

Size doesn't matter. You have no idea what another person can do physically. How much did Royce Gracie weigh when he won his UFC championships when they had NO WEIGHT CLASSES?

Sure that guy who was so easily shoved to the ground certainly comported himself like a black belt

and FYI when deciding if a shooting was justified if the person assaulting is larger than the person being assaulted does come onto the decision as to whether the assault victim felt he was in danger

It's pretty easy to push someone to the ground when they don't see it coming. Is this shit too complicated for you?

I mean you did say that you thought shoving someone to the ground deserved a death sentence penalty. So...

Yes it is easy to assault people when they don't see it coming

That doesn't make it legal

The guy was defending his wife and kids from some psycho that was yelling at them over a parking space. The guy that got shot and killed, actually had more justification to use deadly force than the guy that got pushed down.

Defending people who were safely locked in a car while a guy yelled at them?

Really?

The guy yelling committed no crime