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

#401
#401
Grand Vol said:
Sure would. But we can address concerns we have with the evidence in hand.
Click to expand...

Let’s address the law:

"A person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself," the Florida law states.

How do we determine what someone “reasonably believes” ?
 
#402
#402
I think that pause, that two second delay, is what does it for me. Never been in that situation but I would think that if you were truly in fear for your safety, you would immediately pull your weapon, take aim, and fire. I think if he'd have done that, I would have more sympathy for him.
 
#404
#404
Vol0725 said:
Let’s address the law:

"A person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself," the Florida law states.

How do we determine what someone “reasonably believes” ?
Click to expand...

It's totally a judgment call, but if we can charge jurors with determining reasonable doubt, why can't they determine if this is a reasonable belief?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#405
#405
Grand Vol said:
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.
Click to expand...

:hi:
 
#406
#406
InVOLuntary said:
I think that pause, that two second delay, is what does it for me. Never been in that situation but I would think that if you were truly in fear for your safety, you would immediately pull your weapon, take aim, and fire. I think if he'd have done that, I would have more sympathy for him.
Click to expand...

Point taken. Was the pause to disengage the safety?
 
#407
#407
Vol0725 said:
Let’s address the law:

"A person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself," the Florida law states.

How do we determine what someone “reasonably believes” ?
Click to expand...

Especially IF the guy is standing over him, prior to pulling the gun, and saying that he is going to kill him.......he was attacked in a public place and out numbered.......we can all say that none of us would have pulled the trigger on a guy backing away, but the truth is, we do not know exactly what we would do and the emotions of the situation.....
 
#408
#408
Grand Vol said:
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.
Click to expand...

So are you calling for a change to Florida's SYG laws? Because I don't see that they can convict him based on the standard, as LG has pointed out.
 
#409
#409
n_huffhines said:
It's totally a judgment call, but if we can charge jurors with determining reasonable doubt, why can't they determine if this is a reasonable belief?
Click to expand...

An expressed belief is very difficult to impeach. It forces juries to side with those who legally own guns as long as they say they were afraid.

Stand Your Ground - Why SYG's Reasonable Belief Standard is Beyond Dangerous - Florida Justice

So, what is Reasonable?

Reasonable is everything now. It is all of us. Even those who choose to arm up and “shoot first.” They are legally reasonable. Even those who shoot and kill over an argument over placement of garbage? Even those who bring a .38 to the door and kill someone on their doorstep who had no criminal designs. Reasonable could be someone at a red light who jumps out of a car in a rage of anger and gets into a shoot-out in the street. Reasonable is unreasonable. Unreasonable is reasonable under Stand Your Ground.
 
#410
#410
n_huffhines said:
It's totally a judgment call, but if we can charge jurors with determining reasonable doubt, why can't they determine if this is a reasonable belief?
Click to expand...

That is what they will be charged to find or dismiss in this case......"reasonable belief that he was in fear for his life"
 
#411
#411
Vol0725 said:
Let’s address the law:

"A person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if: He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself," the Florida law states.

How do we determine what someone “reasonably believes” ?
Click to expand...

The fact this law is even on the books screams of an overreaching government. Of course a person has a right to defend themselves, dear lord.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#412
#412
DancingOutlaw said:
How is saying "hey ******* you shouldn't park there" enforcing a law? He wasn't going to write a ticket or detain them. If you've decided the rules don't apply to you, you should have thick enough skin to deal with someone calling you out on it. She should have rolled up the windows, locked the doors, and waved.

Instead we got another episode of "When keepin it real goes wrong".
Click to expand...

Everything you are saying about that woman in the car is correct.

Here is my thing. This handicapped parking thing shouldn't even be on the law books, nor enforced by the police. I'll say it again, it should be a COURTESY extended to the people that need the space. Now, if someone chooses not to recognize that as a courtesy, are you entitled to confront someone and tongue lash them or make a scene? Or, if you do as some of you suggested and take a picture of the license plate and send it to the cops, do we really need police tied up chasing down people that are not courteous?

Next, this goon/thug mentality is out of hand. I hate to say it, but the boyfriend probably had that coming to him for being a menace to society instead of using some restraint. Do people not know they live in a CCW/SYG state like Florida? Did that not cross his mind? There are far better ways of resolving issues outside of the code of the street.

Lastly, we can expect another year of these sort of conflicts in this country on Black Friday, just like we see every year, when people that lack courtesy meet people that don't have self-control and self-restraint. Everyone wants to "stand their ground", no matter if they are right or wrong, and no matter if the issue is really worth fighting for or not. Some of you people need to learn how to pick your battles in life and some times take that "L" for the greater good. No need to confront people 99% of the time, no need to call the law, no need to get worked into a fit of anger.

All of this over a parking space.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#414
#414
T-TownVol said:
Especially IF the guy is standing over him, prior to pulling the gun, and saying that he is going to kill him.......he was attacked in a public place and out numbered.......we can all say that none of us would have pulled the trigger on a guy backing away, but the truth is, we do not know exactly what we would do and the emotions of the situation.....
Click to expand...

True.

I saw the dead guy put his hands abruptly towards (maybe in) his pockets, did that trigger fear?
 
#416
#416
InVOLuntary said:
I think that pause, that two second delay, is what does it for me. Never been in that situation but I would think that if you were truly in fear for your safety, you would immediately pull your weapon, take aim, and fire. I think if he'd have done that, I would have more sympathy for him.
Click to expand...

So, if someone had just attacked you, you're prone on the ground and defenseless except for your gun, he closes distance in an apparent attempt to continue bodily harm, sees your gun, steps back two paces, turns, blocking your view of his right side...

It's not reasonable to believe he looks like he may be reaching for a weapon? If it is reasonable to be afraid of a possible weapon, there is some time cap on how soon your fear of a blind side draw must evaporate?

People don't draw and shoot any later than, say, .75 seconds? .5? What's the stat on this?

I can absolutely see him making the defense that he was afraid of more injury or death, so he fired. By the standards of the FL law, it will be pretty much impossible to say otherwise.

I just don't understand the argument being forwarded. "I'm afraid that this incident will arm the anti-2A group to change this law that apparently needs to be changed."
 
#417
#417
Vol0725 said:
True.

I saw the dead guy put his hands abruptly towards (maybe in) his pockets, did that trigger fear?
Click to expand...

plus the other man coming out of the store to possibly attack him also.......

any defense attorney worth his/her salt will win this one......
 
#418
#418
Orange_Crush said:
So, if someone had just attacked you, you're prone on the ground and defenseless except for your gun, he closes distance in an apparent attempt to continue bodily harm, sees your gun, steps back two paces, turns, blocking your view of his right side...

It's not reasonable to believe he looks like he may be reaching for a weapon? If it is reasonable to be afraid of a possible weapon, there is some time cap on how soon your fear of a blind side draw must evaporate?

People don't draw and shoot any later than, say, .75 seconds? .5? What's the stat on this?

I can absolutely see him making the defense that he was afraid of more injury or death, so he fired. By the standards of the FL law, it will be pretty much impossible to say otherwise.

I just don't understand the argument being forwarded. "I'm afraid that this incident will arm the anti-2A group to change this law that apparently needs to be changed."
Click to expand...

You're getting a lot more out of that video than I am. I'm saying based on what I saw in the video, and I admitted it was limited information, it appears to me that it wasn't self defense but retaliation. That's what I see when I watch the video.
 
#419
#419
T-TownVol said:
Especially IF the guy is standing over him, prior to pulling the gun, and saying that he is going to kill him.......he was attacked in a public place and out numbered.......we can all say that none of us would have pulled the trigger on a guy backing away, but the truth is, we do not know exactly what we would do and the emotions of the situation.....
Click to expand...

That's a huge part of the point I was making earlier. Which is why I give law enforcement reasonable leeway. Yet I refuse to give the citizenry less.
 
#420
#420
T-TownVol said:
plus the other man coming out of the store to possibly attack him also.......

any defense attorney worth his/her salt will win this one......
Click to expand...

If you look at the other guy, he immediately retreats when the gun comes out.

I think you're right though, based on the law, I see no way he gets convicted.
 
#421
#421
InVOLuntary said:
Good point. Not sure you can tell by the video. Also, depending on the weapon, it may not have a safety.
Click to expand...

Correct you cannot tell.

True, not all have safeties (such as revolvers, which then has to be cocked).There are internal safeties to prevent non-trigger-pull discharge (e.g., dropping the gun---the gun may have slammed hard against the asphalt and his body weight and forced safety engagement)...Also, there's grip safety which amounts to a "dead man switch" -- if the grip safety is not held down, the trigger is disengaged and the gun won't fire...point is, we don't have all the facts yet.
 
#422
#422
T-TownVol said:
He will see no conviction imo......
Click to expand...

Which means that an indictment would be nothing more than a way to ruin a not-guilty person's life financially.

It would be an abuse of the system.

So, again... Those calling for an indictment would be better served calling for a change to the law as opposed to implicitly asking for the law to be weaponized against people it can't legally convict.
 
#423
#423
InVOLuntary said:
I think that pause, that two second delay, is what does it for me. Never been in that situation but I would think that if you were truly in fear for your safety, you would immediately pull your weapon, take aim, and fire. I think if he'd have done that, I would have more sympathy for him.
Click to expand...

A scared guy fumbling to get the safety off can easily account for the delay......

I agree that we all HOPE that we would have been able to not pull the trigger in that situation......but the law is clear, right or wrong at this point, that it is the shooters emotions that determine guilt in SYG.......
 
#424
#424
T-TownVol said:
plus the other man coming out of the store to possibly attack him also.......

any defense attorney worth his/her salt will win this one......
Click to expand...

I have to concur, based on not knowing all the facts/sights/sound etc...plus the laws on his side it appears...from a criminal standpoint there's reasonable doubt abound in this one...sad, pointless tragedy, nonetheless.
 
#425
#425
Vol0725 said:
An expressed belief is very difficult to impeach. It forces juries to side with those who legally own guns as long as they say they were afraid.

Stand Your Ground - Why SYG's Reasonable Belief Standard is Beyond Dangerous - Florida Justice

So, what is Reasonable?

Reasonable is everything now. It is all of us. Even those who choose to arm up and “shoot first.” They are legally reasonable. Even those who shoot and kill over an argument over placement of garbage? Even those who bring a .38 to the door and kill someone on their doorstep who had no criminal designs. Reasonable could be someone at a red light who jumps out of a car in a rage of anger and gets into a shoot-out in the street. Reasonable is unreasonable. Unreasonable is reasonable under Stand Your Ground.
Click to expand...

He says he believed it. The jury determines if it's reasonable. It does not really matter if he actually believes it, because as you say, that is nearly impossible to determine.

In this case, I do not think it's reasonable
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top