Justifiable use of deadly force or not?

[Vastator]

Is that opinion or the law in that state. The counter argument can be made that the murdered was in fear that his was about to be physically assaulted.

Evidence doesn't support that. If it did different story.

Nor does eyewitness testimony. No threat heretofore has been claimed to have been made by the victim.

 

[JakeStarkey]

beginning innings, people I know your feelz are helping you with this

If this happened in Texas, there would be a good chance friends of the family would settle the matter.

 

[OODA_Loop]

beginning innings, people

You fail to see their isn't evidence. Furthermore the law is tailored to provide protection in lawful self-defense cases.

 

[JakeStarkey]

beginning innings, people

You fail to see their isn't evidence. Furthermore the law is tailored to provide protection in lawful self-defense cases.

Either a FL court will determine that, or a federal court may get involved.

 

[MacTheKnife]

beginning innings, people

You fail to see their isn't evidence. Furthermore the law is tailored to provide protection in lawful self-defense cases.

Either a FL court will determine that, or a federal court may get involved.

The ball game has changed. Just on the news in Clearwater, Fl, the victim is black.

 

[MacTheKnife]

beginning innings, people

You fail to see their isn't evidence. Furthermore the law is tailored to provide protection in lawful self-defense cases.

A video is evidence. It shows the shooter being shoved down and as in he is a old man that is most distrubing and will be to the jury. In addition the old guy has said he was in fear of his life. Couple those elements together a old man got assaulted, the old man was in fear of his life. All one needs for a clear case of self defense and the use of deadly force is justified under the law of self defense if one is in justifiable fear of his life. Look this is a case of an old man up against a young scary looking black guy.

They have said this was a case of stand your ground, I think it more of a case of just self defense. The stand your ground law says one must not have to flee in order to use deadly force for self defense. The old man was in no position to flee, he had been knocked down and the perp was looking right at him and if he had managed to get up might have assaulted him again. For an old man that adds up to a threat to his life. But now it has been revealed the victim was black and the media is getting involved and the blacks are marching and protesting. Very possible now the old man will be charged with something.

 

[Pogo]

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:

Whelp --- once again this is what gun fetishism and its psycho companion the idea that the answer to every situation is to shoot at it, leads to. As if we hadn't figured it out eons ago.

Has nothing to do with millions of responsible gun owners, so don't even go there with the anti-gun bullcrap.

Ummmm yyyyeah. A shooting has nothing to do with guns. AAAlllll righty then.

Has to do with guns sure, but not in the way you want to go with it. We are tired of the bullcrap where every incident is somehow tied in with the citizens right to bear arms on whole. It's time to go after the criminals and their guns, and yes even these weirdo's that somehow get through the wire, and leave the level minded good armed citizens alone. We need good armed citizens, because the reaction times of the police isn't sufficient enough.

I posted nothing about anybody's "rights". Go read it again.

Then read your last sentence above. Then put the two together.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

If you are a pussy and cant use your hands like a grown ass man, theres several other options for you.

Use your gun as a deterrant, which means pull it and tell the assailant to step the fuck back.

He pulled it alright..

the man stepped the fuck back, alright..

and was shot as he did so.

THATS a bitch move, and its murder.

Other options include: dont start shit with people that will whoop your fuckin ass in a fair one..

dont body guard a parking spot like an abject retard on meth, with a gun in your pocket

In case you didn't realize it the guy that blindsided him and knocked him down is the one who started it

The other guy was doing nothing but yelling

So maybe people should not be assaulting people for yelling

If you push someone away from your woman, you shouldnt expect death. Thats some serious psychotic mentality which alludes to the fact that not everyone is responsible enough to take gun ownership seriously.

If you blindside someone and knock them violently to the ground you shouldn't expect not to be shot

Bullshit! The guy was obviously not injured, so he had no right to shoot his attacker.

The guy who shoved him was wrong, but he didn't deserve to die for it.

There is no stipulation in self defense law that you must be injured before you act

Tell me if a much larger guy blindsided you and knocked you to the ground would you not think you just might be in danger?

It's real easy to be an armchair quarterback

No armchair quarterbacking involved. You don't even rate a quarter.

When he was not injured the threat had ended at which point he drew his weapon and fired. He was not in danger at that moment. Had the assailant continued his attack, he would have been justified in shooting.

Have you looked at the voting? What percentage does it take before you realize that you are on the wrong side of the discussion?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The attacker walked up to the scene and there was no physical contact between the victim and the attackers girlfriend...all physical constact was initiated by the black guy, and he pulled up his shorts as he moved forward....and as the gun came up he didn't put up his hands...

Again.... you guys really, really need to understand self defense and what happens in those situations..... you are making judgements based on a video that flattens the distance between the 2 men, from an angle that hides what the victim actually sees, and you are not the one on the ground looking at the attacker....

You don't know what you are talking about.

Um, no.

I know this guy lived your dream of shooting a darkie, but this was murder.

The store owner even said the shooter was deranged and harrassed his customers frequently.

And yet he never called the cops to have him removed from the premises

How did he know the shooter was even out there? Assume much?

Everyone obviously heard the guy yelling

and I'm sure the woman in the car had a cell phone

The store owner said he was there all the time but yet he never got the guy kicked off the property

Until the other customer came in and told him, how could he know the shooter was there?

I think your assumptions are getting in the way of you thinking logically.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

beginning innings, people

You fail to see their isn't evidence. Furthermore the law is tailored to provide protection in lawful self-defense cases.

A video is evidence. It shows the shooter being shoved down and as in he is a old man that is most distrubing and will be to the jury. In addition the old guy has said he was in fear of his life. Couple those elements together a old man got assaulted, the old man was in fear of his life. All one needs for a clear case of self defense and the use of deadly force is justified under the law of self defense if one is in justifiable fear of his life. Look this is a case of an old man up against a young scary looking black guy.

They have said this was a case of stand your ground, I think it more of a case of just self defense. The stand your ground law says one must not have to flee in order to use deadly force for self defense. The old man was in no position to flee, he had been knocked down and the perp was looking right at him and if he had managed to get up might have assaulted him again. For an old man that adds up to a threat to his life. But now it has been revealed the victim was black and the media is getting involved and the blacks are marching and protesting. Very possible now the old man will be charged with something.

Old man? Where did you get that idea? He was not THAT old. If I remember correctly he is 47.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

It's not that far to tell. It's not like we are trying to estimate how long a house is. If you can't get an idea of how far away he was based on that video, then I can understand why this subject is so difficult for you and why you don't just give up.

You do not know how far away and at what angle the camera was mounted

It's called spacial recognition. It takes intelligence to be able to figure it out. I's sorry you don't have it. You can learn to be better at it, and is why there are experts that are called into court quite often to dissect videos like this one.

You just have to be able to use your memory and then find familiar objects in the video that you know the size of and then use other ques like the parking lines to figure it out. I've just always been able to do it. That's why I ace test like the ASVAB and others that have is on them.

You do not know the focal length of the lens. It's most likely wide angle you do not know the distance or angle of the mount from the person

IOW you are just guessing and are most likely wrong

Talking out your ass again? Focal length? Hilarious!

You take an approximate measurement, such as the human foot, which we know is roughly about a foot in length and then compare that to the distance involved. Its middle school math, you simpleton!

you do know that a wide angle lens distorts the ratios of the image don;t you?

The angle the camera is mounted can also distort the image

and neither the distance of the camera from the person nor the angle of the mount is known

IOW it's a fucking guess

The video is accurate enough. Stop making BS excuses for your ignorant responses.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I am? How many other threads are there I posted in about an idiot with a gun bigger than his brain who murdered someone on video?

Did you claim to know the distances between the people there too?

It's no hard to get a good idea of. There are enough visual cues in the video to determine that. Really doesn't matter if it was 4 feet, 10 feet, or 100 feet. Physics says that when he is backing up and his momentum is going BACKWARDS, after 3 feet the guy on the ground is no longer in danger enough to take the time to pull out his gun, wait a few seconds to point it, and then shoot him down in cold blood.

Try a little experiment. Take your fingers and touch the finger tips to the wall. Now back up until you are as far from the wall as possible but your finger tips are still touching the wall. Now start to back up and try punching the wall. I bet you can't.

momentum

He was moving very fast for momentum to be an issue

Plant a foot and he could change directions in the blink of an eye

Anywhere within a 6 foot circle is striking distance

Speed doesn't matter... HE WAS MOVING BACKWARDS. How can you possibly not understand such a simple physics principle?

so you're saying that he was incapable of changing direction?

He was still close enough to strike again but you don't know shit about hand to hand combat so you don't know how quick a person can change direction

He was going to strike again with a gun pointed at him? If he did, he deserved to be shot, but not before he made a threatening move!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I firmly believe in stand your ground but the man on the ground did not have to shoot...

He thought he did. And as the Sheriff said that's all that mattered.

How many times are you going to post that lie? That's all that mattered to the Sheriff. That is what he meant.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

So far.

Did you watch the press conference and the Sheriff categorically lay out the lawful action and the defense ?

No way a Sheriff makes those statements without prior consult of the State Attorney.

Really?

Did you sleep through the entire Trayvon Martin case?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The murdered was protecting his wife, pushed the offender to the ground, who pulled a gun and shot the other man who had made no further threatening moves toward him.

The victim was the woman the shooter was verbally assaulting.

It's murder.

Investigating law enforcement didnt think so.

Said it was self-defense. No charges.

If the battle of facts versus feelings, taking place on this board are any indicator of what a jury pool would look like... The case is a loser and no sane DA would bring it.

Looks to me like a conviction based on the numbers.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

beginning innings, people

You fail to see their isn't evidence. Furthermore the law is tailored to provide protection in lawful self-defense cases.

A video is evidence. It shows the shooter being shoved down and as in he is a old man that is most distrubing and will be to the jury. In addition the old guy has said he was in fear of his life. Couple those elements together a old man got assaulted, the old man was in fear of his life. All one needs for a clear case of self defense and the use of deadly force is justified under the law of self defense if one is in justifiable fear of his life. Look this is a case of an old man up against a young scary looking black guy.

They have said this was a case of stand your ground, I think it more of a case of just self defense. The stand your ground law says one must not have to flee in order to use deadly force for self defense. The old man was in no position to flee, he had been knocked down and the perp was looking right at him and if he had managed to get up might have assaulted him again. For an old man that adds up to a threat to his life. But now it has been revealed the victim was black and the media is getting involved and the blacks are marching and protesting. Very possible now the old man will be charged with something.

He is NOT an old man, unless of course you are 12 and think everyone over 20 is ancient..

 

[Lewdog]

The murdered was protecting his wife, pushed the offender to the ground, who pulled a gun and shot the other man who had made no further threatening moves toward him.

The victim was the woman the shooter was verbally assaulting.

It's murder.

Investigating law enforcement didnt think so.

Said it was self-defense. No charges.

If the battle of facts versus feelings, taking place on this board are any indicator of what a jury pool would look like... The case is a loser and no sane DA would bring it.

Looks to me like a conviction based on the numbers.

Sadly it only takes one idiot like a few in this thread to hold up the court case.

 

[MacTheKnife]

beginning innings, people

You fail to see their isn't evidence. Furthermore the law is tailored to provide protection in lawful self-defense cases.

A video is evidence. It shows the shooter being shoved down and as in he is a old man that is most distrubing and will be to the jury. In addition the old guy has said he was in fear of his life. Couple those elements together a old man got assaulted, the old man was in fear of his life. All one needs for a clear case of self defense and the use of deadly force is justified under the law of self defense if one is in justifiable fear of his life. Look this is a case of an old man up against a young scary looking black guy.

They have said this was a case of stand your ground, I think it more of a case of just self defense. The stand your ground law says one must not have to flee in order to use deadly force for self defense. The old man was in no position to flee, he had been knocked down and the perp was looking right at him and if he had managed to get up might have assaulted him again. For an old man that adds up to a threat to his life. But now it has been revealed the victim was black and the media is getting involved and the blacks are marching and protesting. Very possible now the old man will be charged with something.

Old man? Where did you get that idea? He was not THAT old. If I remember correctly he is 47.

hmmmmm he looks a lot older than that.

 

[MacTheKnife]

The murdered was protecting his wife, pushed the offender to the ground, who pulled a gun and shot the other man who had made no further threatening moves toward him.

The victim was the woman the shooter was verbally assaulting.

It's murder.

Investigating law enforcement didnt think so.

Said it was self-defense. No charges.

If the battle of facts versus feelings, taking place on this board are any indicator of what a jury pool would look like... The case is a loser and no sane DA would bring it.

Looks to me like a conviction based on the numbers.

Sadly it only takes one idiot like a few in this thread to hold up the court case.

The media is trying to stir things up but without eric holder and obama to put pressure on the local authorities it will be interesting to see how this turns out.

 

[MacTheKnife]

The murdered was protecting his wife, pushed the offender to the ground, who pulled a gun and shot the other man who had made no further threatening moves toward him.

The victim was the woman the shooter was verbally assaulting.

It's murder.

Investigating law enforcement didnt think so.

Said it was self-defense. No charges.

If the battle of facts versus feelings, taking place on this board are any indicator of what a jury pool would look like... The case is a loser and no sane DA would bring it.

Looks to me like a conviction based on the numbers.

What numbers?