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

#426
#426
Orange_Crush said:
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.
Click to expand...

The public pressure will cause an indictment unfortunately.....
 
#428
#428
InVOLuntary said:
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.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of "reasonable" fear of death or bodily harm. Since it's the brain of the shooter where the decision was made, and that brain was responding to his condition and perception, isn't that where "reasonable" should be judged?

I described the situation he was in. The video shows it. My question per your attribute of "two seconds" in the decision process seems, well, reasonable to expect an answer.

Should the man automatically not be afraid anymore, after being violently assaulted, because he has the expectation that the attacker wouldn't pull a gun after backing away...or after a predetermined time?
 
#429
#429
n_huffhines said:
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
Click to expand...

Cool, I respect your perspective, and understand it rationally.
 
#433
#433
Orange_Crush said:
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.
Click to expand...


Let's actually start with this last bit. When one decides to go armed into society that person has entered into a very explicit contract that you are liable for your actions. As I stated in an earlier post what is legally "reasonable" is not some blank check to be written out to whatever sum is needed by a defendant to get off the hook. For instance if somebody was drunk, and I mean plastered and doesn't even remember anything drunk, and beat the hell out of his wife would the fact we totally accept he was drunk absolve him a culpability? Nope. In like manner I totally accept this shooter had a bunch of things charging through his system after being knocked to the ground. As a person carrying a lethal weapon the onus is still very much on him to deal with the situation as it exists in real time and not just in his head. If he didn't think he could handle that he shouldn't have been carrying a firearm. And in case you're wondering if that's an LEO on the ground it wouldn't change my opinion on the matter in the slightest.



Now let's get down to brass tacks on this video. This is where all the players were situated when the weapon came into play and at the point of firing. Note the shootee has basically retreated backwards as far as possible and turning and stepping to create even more space between himself and the shooter. This is what actually happened. What anyone else argues in either direction about "who was thinking what" is going to be speculating. We know the person being shot was creating space between himself and the shooter literally up until the point bullets started flying.
 

Attachments

  • ScreenHunter_2651 Jul. 25 10.08.jpg
    ScreenHunter_2651 Jul. 25 10.08.jpg
    24 KB · Views: 42
  • ScreenHunter_2652 Jul. 25 10.10.jpg
    ScreenHunter_2652 Jul. 25 10.10.jpg
    27.6 KB · Views: 42
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#434
#434
Grand Vol said:
You nailed it on the audio. Let's say "what if" the Barney wannabe was saying something to the effect of "I'll drag your uppity n*gger ass out of the car and b*tch slap you like you deserve."

Not saying that happened, but it'd certainly get blood boiling pretty quick. It does appear there's a decent amount of time when Barney makes contact with the driver and she finally gets out (looking at the video, another car appears in an empty slot like magic). If the boyfriend overheard something like that, yeah, Barney is lucky he only got a shove.

The other half of that is the fact the boyfriend stepped away. I don't care what he says, you still aren't justified in shooting so long as he isn't presenting a threat. LG might correct me on this, but overall, the boyfriend wasn't presenting a threat at the time of the shot.
Click to expand...

I really have a hard time feeling sorry for the boyfriend in this situation. Total goon move on his part.
 
#436
#436
hndog609 said:
Let's actually start with this last bit. When one decides to go armed into society that person has entered into a very explicit contract that you are liable for your actions. As I stated in an earlier post what is legally "reasonable" is not some blank check to be written out to whatever sum is needed by a defendant to get off the hook. For instance if somebody was drunk, and I mean plastered and doesn't even remember anything drunk, and beat the hell out of his wife would the fact we totally accept he was drunk absolve him a culpability? Nope. In like manner I totally accept this shooter had a bunch of things charging through his system after being knocked to the ground. As a person carrying a lethal weapon the onus is still very much on him to deal with the situation as it exists in real time and not just in his head. If he didn't think he could handle that he shouldn't have been carrying a firearm. And in case you're wondering if that's an LEO on the ground it wouldn't change my opinion on the matter in the slightest.



Now let's get down to brass tacks on this video. This is where all the players were situated when the weapon came into play and at the point of firing. Note the shootee has basically retreated backwards as far as possible and turning and stepping to create even more space between himself and the shooter. This is what actually happened. What anyone else argues in either direction about "who was thinking what" is going to be speculating. We know the person being shot was creating space between himself and the shooter literally up until the point bullets started flying.
Click to expand...

Oh, now isn't the bold a big rub in the Fl standard?
 
#437
#437
Orange_Crush said:
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.
Click to expand...

To me and to expand on what I just posted, I would think the burden of proof should be on both parties myself instead of one or the other.

Proof you felt your life was on danger and why.

Proof of why the person's life wasn't in danger and why.

I would think this is the only truly objective way of determining whether SYG would apply. This is textbook example (IMO) of how that would apply.
 
#439
#439
hndog609 said:
Let's actually start with this last bit. When one decides to go armed into society that person has entered into a very explicit contract that you are liable for your actions. As I stated in an earlier post what is legally "reasonable" is not some blank check to be written out to whatever sum is needed by a defendant to get off the hook. For instance if somebody was drunk, and I mean plastered and doesn't even remember anything drunk, and beat the hell out of his wife would the fact we totally accept he was drunk absolve him a culpability? Nope. In like manner I totally accept this shooter had a bunch of things charging through his system after being knocked to the ground. As a person carrying a lethal weapon the onus is still very much on him to deal with the situation as it exists in real time and not just in his head. If he didn't think he could handle that he shouldn't have been carrying a firearm. And in case you're wondering if that's an LEO on the ground it wouldn't change my opinion on the matter in the slightest.



Now let's get down to brass tacks on this video. This is where all the players were situated when the weapon came into play and at the point of firing. Note the shootee has basically retreated backwards as far as possible and turning and stepping to create even more space between himself and the shooter. This is what actually happened. What anyone else argues in either direction about "who was thinking what" is going to be speculating. We know the person being shot was creating space between himself and the shooter literally up until the point bullets started flying.
Click to expand...

Watch this video: Edward L. Queen: Florida'''s '''stand your ground''' law incentivizes violence. Markeis McGlockton'''s death proves it.

Watch the other guy coming outta store approach incident...be looking at video timer...he and the victim seem to stop and pause 3 seconds into the video likely due to seeing the weapon...about 1-1.5 sec later the victim appears to be shot...this happened pretty lickity split fassttt.
 
#440
#440
Vol0725 said:
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.
Click to expand...


Actually if he, at that point, took the time to consciously disengage the safety it would only mean he was being even more deliberate in his intent to fire. A better visual might be if he had a revolver and, and that point in the engagement, specifically took the time to cock the hammer into single-action mode.
 
#441
#441
1972 Grad said:
...and, on the other hand, what if Drejka walked up to the car and said "ma'am you really shouldn't be parking here because truly disabled person might need it." Then she said "eff you, you white trash redneck m'fer. I don't need no damn cracker tellin' me what I can or can't do." And, about that time the dead man comes walking out of the store when she's all up in his face. Fact is, we don't know what was said by anybody, do we?
Click to expand...

I'm more than willing to believe that was her reaction based on the television interview she did. However, Barney Fife should have minded his own business. There were plenty of other empty parking spaces near that one. No one should have been inconvenienced if they needed access.
 
#442
#442
Grand Vol said:
To me and to expand on what I just posted, I would think the burden of proof should be on both parties myself instead of one or the other.

Proof you felt your life was on danger and why.

Proof of why the person's life wasn't in danger and why.

I would think this is the only truly objective way of determining whether SYG would apply. This is textbook example (IMO) of how that would apply.
Click to expand...

I would be OK with you promoting a change to the law. I'm not exactly sure that I would agree with you, as I don't think one can easily decouple the decision made from the perspective in which it's made. But I would support you promoting it and respect the reason why.

I do not in any fashion support a call for this guy's arrest and conviction, as I understand the FL law on this. To convict him would counter the law on the books, and to try him without an ability to convict him would be to weaponize the system in spite of the law--to make the trial itself the punishment. We're in a really dangerous place in this country when we've condoned that.
 
#443
#443
Vol0725 said:
Watch this video: Edward L. Queen: Florida'''s '''stand your ground''' law incentivizes violence. Markeis McGlockton'''s death proves it.

Watch the other guy coming outta store approach incident...be looking at video timer...he and the victim seem to stop and pause 3 seconds into the video likely due to seeing the weapon...about 1-1.5 sec later the victim appears to be shot...this happened pretty lickity split fassttt.
Click to expand...

That raises the question......did the victim turn because he was already shot??
Did the bullet enter from the front or in his back?
From picture, it looks that the victim was still facing the shooter.......so the "he was turning to walk away" is out the window........
 
Last edited:
#444
#444
Orange_Crush said:
Oh, now isn't the bold a big rub in the Fl standard?
Click to expand...


As far as an immunity judgement for SYG? Yep. I think granting SYG immunity based off that video would be a travesty. Things get much deeper at trial (where this should end up) and people can argue back and forth in front of a jury where the "reasonable" line lies regarding the shooter's actions. The defense would not want me on that jury despite me being a staunch 2A supporter and permit holder.
 
#446
#446
Vol0725 said:
Watch this video: Edward L. Queen: Florida'''s '''stand your ground''' law incentivizes violence. Markeis McGlockton'''s death proves it.

Watch the other guy coming outta store approach incident...be looking at video timer...he and the victim seem to stop and pause 3 seconds into the video likely due to seeing the weapon...about 1-1.5 sec later the victim appears to be shot...this happened pretty lickity split fassttt.
Click to expand...


Yep, and that's actually longer than you might think. NFL QB's are, and all the time mind you, expected to complete their entire read and release a pass in under (often well under) 3 seconds. You see and react to things you literally don't even think about WAY faster than that while driving all the time. How much time to batters have after a pitch is thrown? Goalies after a puck is shot? The guy backed up, way up, basically all the way to the vehicle behind him and had started turning away.



There was time.
 
#447
#447
hndog609 said:
As far as an immunity judgement for SYG? Yep. I think granting SYG immunity based off that video would be a travesty. Things get much deeper at trial (where this should end up) and people can argue back and forth in front of a jury where the "reasonable" line lies regarding the shooter's actions. The defense would not want me on that jury despite me being a staunch 2A supporter and permit holder.
Click to expand...

Jurors shouldn’t act on the emotions of what they think, their decisions should be made on what’s provable, in accord with the case being tried and any applicable laws.

Prove, from the frame of Drejka’s mind, that the SYG law, specific to what we currently know, is null and void. You can’t logically do that at this point.

I’m not a fan of jury nullification, but that’s in fact your stance, only in reverse. The law is “protecting” the shooter, but instead of choosing innocence over the law, as it is written, you’re choosing guilt.

I’ve said this before but it bears repeating, all involved share culpability. Personally, I have no emotional attachment to or concern for the eventual verdict. I’m applying my thoughts on what is written, juxtaposed with what is seen/known from the footage. Per FL SYG law (as written), this man will be charged, at most, with manslaughter, but will likely be exonerated of all criminal charges.

JMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#449
#449
Squints said:
Jurors shouldn’t act on the emotions of what they think, their decisions should be made on what’s provable, in accord with the case being tried and any applicable laws.

Prove, from the frame of Drejka’s mind, that the SYG law, specific to what we currently know, is null and void. You can’t logically do that at this point.
Click to expand...

But his frame of mind only pertains to the question of whether or not it's manslaughter or murder. If he had an innocent frame of mind but made a bad choice, he still needs to be convicted of manslaughter, not exonerated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#450
#450
My personal opinion is that the deceased was wrong in knocking the old guy down. However, he retreated after that and was no longer a threat. Therefore I don't believe stand your ground should apply. It gives you the right stand your ground and not retreat. It does not give you the right to shoot somebody who has retreated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top