Justifiable use of deadly force or not?

[kaz]

I thought it said they were still deciding. He should be charged minimum second degree murder. I'd convict him of first degree murder based on the film given that he was repeatedly trying to stage that scenario

I'm not sure how you can say he staged it,let alone repeatedly.

The store owner's testimony says as much.

Just went back and read the story again....
I didnt see anything like you're stating.
Some other link I'm missing?

Theres a video in the OP, with the store owner being interviewed and a video of the incident as well.

Where's the interview from the store clerk?

The video of the shooting pretty much clears the shooter.

The one minute mark of the video. It's like two minutes long, how do you keep not finding it?

 

[ozro]

I would like to thank everyone in this thread for their civil discourse. I think I need to get off here, my personal experience still disturbs me, so I am going to go work it off.

I think this case needs to be decided by a court.

What I can tell you for certain is that if you find yourself in a position that forces you to use deadly force, you will be victimized 3 times:
Being the victim of the criminal you shot
Being the victim of the legal process you will be subjected to
And
The victim of your own conscience.

Have a great day

 

[Uncensored2008]

Let the court and a jury decide.

How so? He didn't break any law.

The victim was backing away. Use of deadly force on a retreating target is illegal.

 

[kaz]

1st off, that isn't the complete video. With that said, if all that guy did was push him to the ground, he's guilty of assault & battery... no need to shoot him.

Assault and battery which could reasonably result in great bodily injury or death,

Accused groper dies after fight in downtown Austin

I'd be pissed if some crazy schmuck was yelling at my wife when I came out of a store. It's a threatening situation

 

[G.T.]

Let the court and a jury decide.

How so? He didn't break any law.

The victim was backing away. Use of deadly force on a retreating target is illegal.

Not only that, but if a man was such a threat to my wife that a bystander thought to come tell a store clerk...then i walked outside and he was screaming in her face...

a simple push is the least of his worries

Im not sure where testicles went but you dont attack women and you dont wish death on men protecting their women from a known and problematic LOON

 

[kaz]

I would like to thank everyone in this thread for their civil discourse

Funny how when leftists aren't really participating in a discussion it works that way, huh?

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

There will be neither as the shooter was not charged.

I thought it said they were still deciding. He should be charged minimum second degree murder. I'd convict him of first degree murder based on the film given that he was repeatedly trying to stage that scenario

I'm not sure how you can say he staged it,let alone repeatedly.

The store owner's testimony says as much.

Just went back and read the story again....
I didnt see anything like you're stating.
Some other link I'm missing?

Go to the one minute mark of the video

Found it.
Not sure if that'll change anything.
The guy escalated the situation by attacking him.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Again, particularly that he continually staged that event.

Yet he never brandished and didn't use the gun someone went hands on ?

What does that mean?

He continually staged the event but never brandished or used his weapon therefore he was looking to use his weapon isnt supported by his factual actions, He used only after being attacked.

 

[jon_berzerk]

So how many people in the United States have been given the DEATH PENALTY for pushing someone to the ground?

Pushing someone onto the pavement is reasonable belief of great bodily harm.

So if your son pushes another boy onto the ground in the school yard, its ok if the boy pushed to the ground pulls out a gun and shoots him, killing him?

Since when do five year olds pack heat?

i thought why even bother to respond to such a ridiculous post

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Again, particularly that he continually staged that event.

Yet he never brandished and didn't use the gun someone went hands on ?

What does that mean?

He continually staged the event but never brandished or used his weapon therefore he was looking to use his weapon isnt supported by his factual actions, He used only after being attacked.

Thats my take on it.
The could have walked up and asked what the problem was instead he escalated the tension.

 

[jon_berzerk]

if the da has any concerns

it will be up to a grand jury to decide

if charges are supportable

 

[OODA_Loop]

The victim was backing away. Use of deadly force on a retreating target is illegal.

Depends....he could have indicated and was retreating to get his "gat" out of the car...she gets out after he was pushed

What was said ?

 

[kaz]

I thought it said they were still deciding. He should be charged minimum second degree murder. I'd convict him of first degree murder based on the film given that he was repeatedly trying to stage that scenario

I'm not sure how you can say he staged it,let alone repeatedly.

The store owner's testimony says as much.

Just went back and read the story again....
I didnt see anything like you're stating.
Some other link I'm missing?

Go to the one minute mark of the video

Found it.
Not sure if that'll change anything.
The guy escalated the situation by attacking him.

So you heard the guy was repeatedly confronting people over a parking space (that wasn't his), was angry and hostile, and you think that doesn't matter? Obviously the guy created a loop that would eventually end in someone being dead.

And you defend that? Seriously? Guns are to be used to prevent shootings if at all possible and only be used if necessary. And yet you're defending a situation that was guaranteed to end in someone being killed.

That's not what gun rights are about, it just isn't

 

[JoeMoma]

Again, particularly that he continually staged that event.

Yet he never brandished and didn't use the gun someone went hands on ?

What does that mean?

He continually staged the event but never brandished or used his weapon therefore he was looking to use his weapon isnt supported by his factual actions, He used only after being attacked.

Could his actions be considered baiting someone to attack?

 

[kaz]

Again, particularly that he continually staged that event.

Yet he never brandished and didn't use the gun someone went hands on ?

What does that mean?

He continually staged the event but never brandished or used his weapon therefore he was looking to use his weapon isnt supported by his factual actions, He used only after being attacked.

Thank you. I understood what you said now.

However, he initiated the aggression. A guy goes in the store and you start screaming at his woman, and it's not your store. You think wow, this isn't initiating hostility? Really? Then he shot to kill someone who wasn't at that time threatening him. Obviously it was going to end in a death.

If you set up a scenario that will logically end in a death and repeat that scenario until it does, the term for that is premeditated murder

 

[G.T.]

also not to mention any grown man so intetested in defense should walk his fat ass to a gym and learn to square the fuck up

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I'm not sure how you can say he staged it,let alone repeatedly.

The store owner's testimony says as much.

Just went back and read the story again....
I didnt see anything like you're stating.
Some other link I'm missing?

Go to the one minute mark of the video

Found it.
Not sure if that'll change anything.
The guy escalated the situation by attacking him.

So you heard the guy was repeatedly confronting people over a parking space (that wasn't his), was angry and hostile, and you think that doesn't matter? Obviously the guy created a loop that would eventually end in someone being dead.

And you defend that? Seriously? Guns are to be used to prevent shootings if at all possible and only be used if necessary. And yet you're defending a situation that was guaranteed to end in someone being killed.

That's not what gun rights are about, it just isn't

Oh I saw it.
But he obviously never pulled his gun before he was attacked.

Talking is one thing attacking is another.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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:

On one hand, the shooter was armed and looking for trouble. On the other, the shooting victim shoved him with enough force to possibly break his sternum. I have to agree with the OP on the grounds that the assault did not continue. However, would the assault have continued had the shooter not drawn his firearm? On the surface it seem at least to me, the situation had stabilized after the weapon was drawn. An interesting case to follow.

In which case you’re just as wrong as the OP.

Florida SYG doctrine doesn’t require the attack to be ‘ongoing’; indeed, the theory of the law is that one may use deadly force to stop an attack, before the assailant has an opportunity to inflict bodily harm or kill the person being attacked.

Now, had McGlockton turned and started running from the incident and Drejka then shot McGlockton, the shooting would likely not have met SYG requirements.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Again, particularly that he continually staged that event.

Yet he never brandished and didn't use the gun someone went hands on ?

What does that mean?

He continually staged the event but never brandished or used his weapon therefore he was looking to use his weapon isnt supported by his factual actions, He used only after being attacked.

Could his actions be considered baiting someone to attack?

I'd say so.
But that doesnt give the guy the right to attack him.
People have disagreements everyday without resorting to violence.
Not that I agree with the shooting but the law is the law.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The victim was backing away. Use of deadly force on a retreating target is illegal.

Depends....he could have indicated and was retreating to get his "gat" out of the car...she gets out after he was pushed

What was said ?

The victim was white, so I doubt that was the case. Even so, verbal threats while retreating do not justify deadly force.