We are an entitled, petty, barbaric country: Handicapped parking shooting

#377
#377
Grand Vol said:
It should speak volumes seeing me stand against the shooter here knowing my track record on 2A items.

Here's my problem with the whole thing. This turd gives the rest of us law abiding gun owners and CCW carriers a much harder time in doing just that. Just like those idiots carrying their rifles into Chipotle or Target, they do more to harm the cause rather than help.

The shooter presented his firearm, boyfriend backed off.

No. Longer. A. Threat.

Pause.

Shooter engages.

I'd dare say in every CCW class in the US, nobody would rule that a valid shoot based on the video alone. Now, there could be extenuating circumstances we are unaware of. I'll give that leeway, but overall, the shooter needed to have been arrested that night.

You have some in here saying "well, the boyfriend had a criminal record as well!" Yes, he does have a record for battery. Relevant? Perhaps. However, once the firearm was presented, he backed away and was not in a position to do further harm when the shot was fired. And don't quote the Tueller Drill. That applies when and if the perp is charging you which clearly was not happening.

Call. The. Cops.

No, this was some Rambo wannabe that has a history of escalating encounters with people all while carrying a CCW. And it's going to make it harder for the rest of the law abiding citizens to legally defend themselves when (not if) they change the law in Florida.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with much of what you said, except I will add this.

(1) Right/Wrong/Legal does not depend on how a situation affects your or my cause. I'm as staunch a 2A Concealed carry advocate as anyone. I hate what this shooting may do to that cause.

That has NO bearing on this, and shouldn't cloud perspective.

(2) The shooter's background sounds despicable. He should have been arrested then. It doesn't change whether this was a defensible shooting or not. You sound as though you are allowing that background and his perceived attitude to cloud your perception on this. Being an ******* isn't illegal, and past encounters do not at face change whether this was a defensible shooting.

(3) The aggressor backed up. There were two seconds of video time between him posturing over the man who had just been violently blind sided, and who was sprawled and vulnerable beneath a guy who was still closing to apparently finish the job... Two seconds of video time between that and the man taking two steps back and getting shot.

I'm not so sure I'm willing to chalk that two seconds up as some eternity of decision making. I'm trying to put myself in the shooter's position. I'm not someone who has ever committed road rage, nor brandished a weapon. But I am someone who has been involved in several physical confrontations. I know what the chemical dump to the grain can do, and time does funny things. Your primal response is much different than your rational side that you use every day.
You know this.

I'm not sure what I'd do. And AGAIN... I would watch that video and aquit an officer for that shooting unless given other reasons not to. I can't see giving the highly trained officer a different standard than the general public when they are attacked.

I suspect you're willing to let the good of a cause send someone to prison. Not attacking. Just observing.
 
#380
#380
Vol0725 said:
After he was violently shoved back and into the asphalt, what was his state of mind in that instance? Was it a nervous reaction? What was said? He shot 1 bullet, not a full clip. Was it done in a state of fear or anger? Did he intentionally shoot to kill or wound, and might that matter? That’s what lady justice must determine.
Click to expand...
Who 'shoots to wound'?
 
#381
#381
zeppelin128 said:
He wasn't violently shoved. He overreacted, and should pay the price for it. Young dude was backing away and instead of showing his weapon and stating his fear (which I think is the NRA method of justifying SYG), he murdered a guy in front of his kids and SO over a parking space.

No sympathy for old dude. Hope he rots in prison.
Click to expand...

You’d make a great prosecutor. 👍
 
#383
#383
zeppelin128 said:
He wasn't violently shoved.
Click to expand...
giphy.gif
 
#385
#385
Grand Vol said:
Yeah, there's my problem. It wasn't like he shot him as he was standing right over him. The guy walked back two steps after shooter presented and there's still a pause in the time before he shoots him.
Click to expand...

Is it me, or was there a pause in the video immediately after the shot, then it looks to start back up and shows him scurrying into the store?
 
#386
#386
Orange_Crush said:
I don't disagree with much of what you said, except I will add this.

(1) Right/Wrong/Legal does not depend on how a situation affects your or my cause. I'm as staunch a 2A Concealed carry advocate as anyone. I hate what this shooting may do to that cause.

That has NO bearing on this, and shouldn't cloud perspective.

(2) The shooter's background sounds despicable. He should have been arrested then. It doesn't change whether this was a defensible shooting or not. You sound as though you are allowing that background and his perceived attitude to cloud your perception on this. Being an ******* isn't illegal, and past encounters do not at face change whether this was a defensible shooting.

(3) The aggressor backed up. There were two seconds of video time between him posturing over the man who had just been violently blind sided, and who was sprawled and vulnerable beneath a guy who was still closing to apparently finish the job... Two seconds of video time between that and the man taking two steps back and getting shot.

I'm not so sure I'm willing to chalk that two seconds up as some eternity of decision making. I'm trying to put myself in the shooter's position. I'm not someone who has ever committed road rage, nor brandished a weapon. But I am someone who has been involved in several physical confrontations. I know what the chemical dump to the grain can do, and time does funny things. Your primal response is much different than your rational side that you use every day.
You know this.

I'm not sure what I'd do. And AGAIN... I would watch that video and aquit an officer for that shooting unless given other reasons not to. I can't see giving the highly trained officer a different standard than the general public when they are attacked.

I suspect you're willing to let the good of a cause send someone to prison. Not attacking. Just observing.
Click to expand...

Two seconds in that instance is a lifetime. It takes what? A quarter of a second to pull that trigger? Less?

That seems more and more like an intentional act rather than an impulsive move. Now, if the boyfriend had just started backing up, we wouldn't be having this conversation. But the facts stand as they are. He moved back. He was out of position to cause further harm. Shooter engaged.

Yes, if this was an LEO, I'd be saying the same thing. You know of the objective reasonableness standard in shootings? That's what I'm applying here.

I won't let my personal feelings cloud my better judgment on this one. But you know as well as I, these kinds of things are often countered with knee jerk reactions from the anti-2A side of the house. There is no objectivity in these cases.

I'm not willing to let the "cause" send someone to prison unjustly. I'm willing to send a person to prison for violating the intent of SYG laws and using excessive force to kill a person when it wasn't warranted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#387
#387
InVOLuntary said:
If you don't think he was violently shoved then you're not looking at this objectively. The guy landed 10' from where he was shoved. The guy took a running shot. He wasn't bumped.
Click to expand...

Meh.....typical Friday night in Martin......some bad arse martial arts rednecks up thar.......
 
#396
#396
Grand Vol said:
It should speak volumes seeing me stand against the shooter here knowing my track record on 2A items.

Here's my problem with the whole thing. This turd gives the rest of us law abiding gun owners and CCW carriers a much harder time in doing just that. Just like those idiots carrying their rifles into Chipotle or Target, they do more to harm the cause rather than help.

The shooter presented his firearm, boyfriend backed off.

No. Longer. A. Threat.

Pause.

Shooter engages.

I'd dare say in every CCW class in the US, nobody would rule that a valid shoot based on the video alone. Now, there could be extenuating circumstances we are unaware of. I'll give that leeway, but overall, the shooter needed to have been arrested that night.

You have some in here saying "well, the boyfriend had a criminal record as well!" Yes, he does have a record for battery. Relevant? Perhaps. However, once the firearm was presented, he backed away and was not in a position to do further harm when the shot was fired. And don't quote the Tueller Drill. That applies when and if the perp is charging you which clearly was not happening.

Call. The. Cops.

No, this was some Rambo wannabe that has a history of escalating encounters with people all while carrying a CCW. And it's going to make it harder for the rest of the law abiding citizens to legally defend themselves when (not if) they change the law in Florida.
Click to expand...

You get no argument from me. I've said the guy had distance between him and the guy that pushed him. He also had time as he paused before pulling the trigger, a significant pause. I have no doubt that he shot him, not in self defense, but in retaliation. It may be hard to prove guilt but knowing what I know after watching the video, which is limited, I would find him guilty if I were on a jury.
 
#397
#397
lawgator1 said:
As above, I go to the burden of proof. Shooter takes stand and says he fired because the guy had come out of nowhere and shoved him to the ground, hard. He looked up and guy was standing there with irate look on his face. He pulled gun and fired out of genuine fear the guy was going to continue. He did not pay attention to a step back or a turn. It happened so fast. He was shocked and acted instinctually to protect himself.

How can the state prove by clear and convincing evidence that his stated fear was unreasonable or unjustified? If its debatable, shooter wins.

That's why the Sheriff did not arrest. In fact, I looked at the statute. The Sheriff is barred from arresting the guy unless he has probable cause that the immunity does not apply.

So he defers to the state attorney. That's the law.
Click to expand...
Pretty much. I still think the arrest for manslaughter comes. The guy was clearly backing up.
 
#399
#399
Police could arrest Drejka is they wanted. "Stand your ground" (meaning you have no "duty to retreat" if someone attacks you in a public space) has nothing to do with whether shooting someone who knocked you down is reasonable self-defense.

Contrary to the police chief's misleading claims, the standard for self-defense is NOT a "subjective belief by the person that they are in harm's way." He's confused, because that's the bogus standard that police are held to. Rather, it's a *reasonable* belief that deadly force is "necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm." - skeptical libertarian
Click to expand...

‘Stand Your Ground’ Did Not Kill Markeis McGlockton - Reason.com
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top