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

[Orangedogsrule]

If you kept every detail exactly the same, except give the person with the gun a vay-jj, does your opinion or pov change?

Gender makes no difference in any way.

 

[DynaLo]

Pretty fancy shooting if he couldn't see very well.

Not really. Could just be muscle memory and range time. I'm nearsighted and can't read my dashboard without glasses so I've spent a lot of time practicing without them and can easily center mass out to 21 feet.

 

[k-town_king]

And how do you know he threatened the woman?

And in the case of the woman, if she were threatened, why did she get out of the car? She was relatively safe in the car. She got out where she was more vulnerable. Doesn't sound like she felt threatened to me.

Maybe she wanted to get between him and the car with her infant children in it.

Wrong. Legally.

At the time her husband appears the shooter was three feet from her and arguing over the HC parking spot. While one can say that's being overbearing, it's not illegal, and the old guy was right about the illegal parking in a HC spot. He could have taken a photo of the car in the spot and called the cops to wtite a ticket for a ... what $ ....

OK..I looked it up for Tennessee. Evidently, so many folk don't take it seriously that in 2008 ...



What it comes down to is the young ABLE BODIED husband disrespected any HC person who might drive up and need that that spot. When he violently pushed the old guy down, he performed the illegal provocation.

You might say he pushed him down instead of hitting him with a closed fist, but the number two killer of seniors is the consequences of a fall. Brittle joint bones break. Hitting with a closed fist could kill many seniors with medical conditions for which a HC parking permit could be issued.

If the husband had kept his head and talked it through he'd be alive.

The shooter should not have completely unlimbered his weapon. There's the real crux of the issue. And he had the opportunity to not pull the trigger.

LMAO. The guys isn't old or a senior. lol:

The threat was over. H:birgits_giggle:e got pushed like someone at daycare then retaliated with murder.

shooter was 47. not a senior.

Yea why are people trying to act like he was 87 or something?

The shooter looked legally blind almost without his glasses, it appears they may have gotten knocked off after he was uprooted and smashed back to the ground.

Exhibit 1: multiple photos of Rx glasses

Twitter

Twitter

Twitter

So you are an optometrist? Yall are really reaching trying to come up with some "didn't have his glasses on" excuse. lol:

 

[DynaLo]

Doesn't for me, same as if it were an LEO. However, to the point to which you allude, I'm 100% sure it would for some.

What I allude to is disparity of force which is normally looked at in self defense claims. It's usually much easier to understand with a female involved, but as it knows no gender it also comes in to play in this situation. The attacker was almost 20 years younger and in obviously much, much better physical condition than the person he assaulted.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

I’d wager this wouldn’t even be a thread if both of the folks involved were black....

If both were black, it would just be called "Thursday " or whatever day it happened on. I would wager not a single day passes in the southeast without a black on black murder. Does that have bearing on this incident? No. Does it show the MSM IS ALWAYS busy trying to divide the masses, so they don't eat the rich??? Yes.

That's what it all boils down to. Keep people arguing over race, abortion, gay marriage..whatever. just don't let them ever get bored enough to look for the truth...and find out that the game is rigged, and the top 1% does not give a damn about politics, people, the planet...or anything else...except making and taking more and more as the gap between the haves and have nots is ever increasing, and the middle class is almost non existent. Anything but "eat the rich".

And I am a conservative. By rich, I don't mean the well to do folks who worked hard and saved all their lives. I mean the billionaires who have never worked a day in their lives, who make deals and stock buys so large that it causes swings in the market, which in turn makes them even more money. Not talking about doctors, they aren't rich. I am talking about the people who own the hospitals. They are rich, and live above the law. Drugs, little boys and girls, cults, you name it. The truly elite like the Clinton's are above the law, and act like it. That's who I am talking about. They pull the strings, and the politicians and society at large dances to their cadence. It will never change now, they are so entrenched in 5he system, in the markets, in DC...that they are untouchable. Meanwhile what used to be the middle class is now the working poor, and the jobs that poor people used to have are gone to immigrants or people so poor they live in campgraounds or their vehicles. Do some reading, CEO pay increasing tenfold relative to their workers in the last 30 years is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[hndog609]

What I allude to is disparity of force which is normally looked at in self defense claims. It's usually much easier to understand with a female involved, but as it knows no gender it also comes in to play in this situation. The attacker was almost 20 years younger and in obviously much, much better physical condition than the person he assaulted.

Then we're talking two different things at two different times. If a female had pulled her weapon and immediately shot McKglockton I don't think anyone would have thought twice about it. I'm pretty confident if this shooter had done so we wouldn't be talking about it either. Disparity of force, and basically any viable threat argument, became pretty dubious once he began and continued to retreat.

 

[LouderVol]

To Louder...I came late to this thread and didn't read all the pages. I took the shooter to be a senior, and I took him to be taking up for himself ...to find out it was his mother who is disabled. However.... many disabled folk are young, the age of a disabled person needing HC parking is immaterial. I've needed 6 mos. temporary HC hangtags from my early 20s. Probably only needed one half a dozen times until a few years ago and I got a permanent one. But when you really need one and all are taken and you see a non HC car taking one up it's really irratating. I tell myself maybe they forgot to hang it up.

The guy teaching the Concealed Carry course I took pounded into our heads that once the decision to draw the weapon was made we were holding life in our hands, not just the gun. We had to believe our life or body was in imminent danger...we had to have provocation.

Then the act of unlimbering/exposing the concealed weapon becomes a threat of the use of deadly force.
After exposing the weapon
we had to think on three things because just seeing a gun may cause the agressor to pull one. So, immediately:

1. Release the safety,
2. Put your finger on the trigger
3. We are responsible for our bullet, are there innocent bystanders, etc.
4. So, DO NOT directly aim at the aggressor but safely just away and KNOW you're life or serious bodily harm is in IMMINENT danger. If so, center your sights.
5. Aim in center of chest to STOP the aggressor, not wound, they can kill you wounded. Use as many rounds as necessary.

I don't see provocation to take deadly aim after he exposed his weapon. I can't hear anything.

He had already been viciously attacked and knocked to the ground.

Personally, I can't call it murder. It may be manslaughter.
He may go free.

I agree about the necessity of them. I deal with them enough to see them as necessary. But this guy is clearly just sitting around waiting for people to illegally park there. I doubt he is getting out and helping the ones who should be parking there. and unless there was a handicap person trying to get to that spot, no harm no foul.

Dude can ask them to move on, but he is clearly trying to derive some authority from the law here.

 

[Vol0725]

Maybe she wanted to get between him and the car with her infant children in it.



LMAO. The guys isn't old or a senior. lol:

The threat was over. H:birgits_giggle:e got pushed like someone at daycare then retaliated with murder.



Yea why are people trying to act like he was 87 or something?



So you are an optometrist? Yall are really reaching trying to come up with some "didn't have his glasses on" excuse. lol:

Let me explain Spicoli...

If his vision was impaired, how can you argue what the shooter saw or didn’t see clearly in regards to victims actions after he uprooted and smashed him back and into the ashphalt? Thus it casts further doubt about the anger argument, rather than simply fear.

 

[DynaLo]

Then we're talking two different things at two different times. If a female had pulled her weapon and immediately shot McKglockton I don't think anyone would have thought twice about it. I'm pretty confident if this shooter had done so we wouldn't be talking about it either. Disparity of force, and basically any viable threat argument, became pretty dubious once he began and continued to retreat.

Again, you can say he retreated from watching the video. That's Monday morning quarterbacking.

Did he appear to retreat to the guy on the ground that got assaulted during the 5-6 seconds between the actual physical assault and weapon discharge? That's what matters along with if any verbal threat was made during the assault.

It's a tragic situation all the way around but I'm not looking at it from a morality view. This was an avoidable situation from all 3 parties if some common sense had come into play. I'm looking for the box ticks that allow SYG to be lawfully invoked and so far they do appear to be there.

 

[DancingOutlaw]

Maybe she wanted to get between him and the car with her infant children in it.



LMAO. The guys isn't old or a senior. lol:

The threat was over. H:birgits_giggle:e got pushed like someone at daycare then retaliated with murder.



Yea why are people trying to act like he was 87 or something?



So you are an optometrist? Yall are really reaching trying to come up with some "didn't have his glasses on" excuse. lol:

Who gets out of a car to confront someone they’re afraid of? Lock the doors and call the cops if it’s that life threatening. Better yet put it in reverse and leave. Zero good reasons to get out unless you’re interested in escalating a situation.

 

[hndog609]

Again, you can say he retreated from watching the video. That's Monday morning quarterbacking.

Did he appear to retreat to the guy on the ground that got assaulted during the 5-6 seconds between the actual physical assault and weapon discharge? That's what matters along with if any verbal threat was made during the assault.

I can't make any sense of the MMQ. The guy was at point A and backed away to point B. That either factually happened or it didn't. I saw it, you saw, everybody saw it, including Drejka.

Look, I've touched on this numerous times but there simply is not some right "to believe whatever I want" and have everybody else just shrug and go "Eh, dude said he was scared.". It didn't work for Michael Dunn nor should it have. Curtis Reeves is headed to trial for murder and should be. That "reasonable" part of a justified use of lethal force is not some carte blanche definition sitting beneath "Well, that's what I was thinking at the time.". It is absolutely within the purview of others (including judges and juries) to conclude your personal take on an incident was not reasonable.

 

[RikidyBones]

I can't make any sense of the MMQ. The guy was at point A and backed away to point B. That either factually happened or it didn't. I saw it, you saw, everybody saw it, including Drejka.

Look, I've touched on this numerous times but there simply is not some right "to believe whatever I want" and have everybody else just shrug and go "Eh, dude said he was scared.". It didn't work for Michael Dunn nor should it have. Curtis Reeves is headed to trial for murder and should be. That "reasonable" part of a justified use of lethal force is not some carte blanche definition sitting beneath "Well, that's what I was thinking at the time.". It is absolutely within the purview of others (including judges and juries) to conclude your personal take on an incident was not reasonable.

but it worked in the Trayvon Martin case and it will here.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Pretty fancy shooting if he couldn't see very well.

Center mass was a pretty big target from 10-15 feet away. Not THAT impressive...

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Maybe she wanted to get between him and the car with her infant children in it.

Why? If that was her concern, why didn't she simply start the car and move it? No... she was confrontational and not remotely 'scared' of him. Then baby daddy blindsided him and it was 2v1 in the shooters' mind.

 

[hndog609]

but it worked in the Trayvon Martin case and it will here.

First, it doesn't matter what you, I, or anyone else believes happened in the Martin/Zimmerman case. What matters is what the argument was that was going to convict/exonerate Zimmerman. That argument was Martin was actively assaulting Zimmerman. The gunshot that killed Martin was at such a range there was powder tattooing at the wound site.

This latest incident is profoundly different.

 

[RikidyBones]

First, it doesn't matter what you, I, or anyone else believes happened in the Martin/Zimmerman case. What matters is what the argument was that was going to convict/exonerate Zimmerman. That argument was Martin was actively assaulting Zimmerman. The gunshot that killed Martin was at such a range there was powder tattooing at the wound site.

This latest incident is profoundly different.

no it is not a mirror image but it is relatable. it would add a color to my rainbow if these things never happened. but it did and they do. now we have to look into a law with subjective aspects to determine if the shooter is protected. He may get charged but not convicted.

 

[hndog609]

no it is not a mirror image but it is relatable. it would add a color to my rainbow if these things never happened. but it did and they do. now we have to look into a law with subjective aspects to determine if the shooter is protected. He may get charged but not convicted.

With respect I think we're a good deal more than not mirror image. And for the record Zimmerman never invoked SYG.


And you're correct he could be charged but not convicted. If that happens so be it. I very much do not think SYG immunity should be in play.

 

[Vol0725]

Always want to show evidence and discuss facts...the RX glasses theory may be weakened by this video...I do not definitively see that...this is kinda odd extended video which I’ve not seen?

‘Stand your ground’ law protects shooter in deadly fight over parking space: sheriff

 

[Vol0725]

This one guy interviewed in video alledges he called his work with tag info and said he’d shoot him if he did it again, allegedly called him the “n” word ( can employer verify this? If so...)...I do recall in one video where the 47 yr old did walk behind to get the license tag # too...the store owner said he’s had to call cops before, if they can pull up that record and old video evidence, I dunno...this case is getting a bit fishier, I must say...but hate may have been a motive to approach, not sure the relevance if even viable. Was the shot based on anger or embarrassment once you review the history?

Video: Florida man shot, killed during parking spot dispute - KMOV.com

 

[hndog609]

To LG (or any law professional that might know) could any of these cited examples of prior iffy behavior have any influence in a SYG immunity hearing or is that a singular incident judgement?

 

[MercyPercy]

Again, you can say he retreated from watching the video. That's Monday morning quarterbacking.

Did he appear to retreat to the guy on the ground that got assaulted during the 5-6 seconds between the actual physical assault and weapon discharge? That's what matters along with if any verbal threat was made during the assault.

It's a tragic situation all the way around but I'm not looking at it from a morality view. This was an avoidable situation from all 3 parties if some common sense had come into play. I'm looking for the box ticks that allow SYG to be lawfully invoked and so far they do appear to be there.

The problem with that argument is that it could be nearly impossible to prove the shooter was not afraid for their life, in nearly any situation that is even the tiniest bit murky. The "he was coming right at me" defense (except in this case, the individual was moving away) is abused by the police, and here I think it was abused by the citizen.

Who am I to say what the state of mind is for anyone who shoots someone and claiming self defense? At what point can we say, hey, that's not very reasonable, and not be subjected to this defense that seems to offer blanket protection as long as someone says they were scared?

I'm all for being able to defend oneself from a violent aggressor but shooting someone over a shove is, IMO, extreme carelessness.

 

[Grand Vol]

Not really. Could just be muscle memory and range time. I'm nearsighted and can't read my dashboard without glasses so I've spent a lot of time practicing without them and can easily center mass out to 21 feet.

Actually, I've read it's better to shoot with reading glasses on if you need them. Better sight picture.

 

[Orangedogsrule]

The problem with that argument is that it could be nearly impossible to prove the shooter was not afraid for their life, in nearly any situation that is even the tiniest bit murky. The "he was coming right at me" defense (except in this case, the individual was moving away) is abused by the police, and here I think it was abused by the citizen.

Who am I to say what the state of mind is for anyone who shoots someone and claiming self defense? At what point can we say, hey, that's not very reasonable, and not be subjected to this defense that seems to offer blanket protection as long as someone says they were scared?

I'm all for being able to defend oneself from a violent aggressor but shooting someone over a shove is, IMO, extreme carelessness.

The shooter is obligated to determine if there is an imminent threat to life or limb. I just watched the clip several times.
The shooter didn't seem to be aware the guy was coming at him to push him until the last moment when he looks up as he gets blindsided. The push caused him to fall down with some force, but he is drawing very quickly. See how fast the man behind picks up on that and runs off to the right. The guy who gets shot steps back but continues to face the man he pushed. The shooter aims at the chest and after about 1-1/2 sec pause fires.

Visually, it appears he could have given the younger man more time to stand down. He was blindsided by a violent push, (regardless of K-town's weak kindergarten babble) and between gathering himself to where he had his weapon in his hand aimed at his aggressor and taking the shot was at most 2.xx sec. He could have taken a couple or more seconds and not killed a man.
But again..we don't know what was said. That and the fight or flight adrenaline rush. He squeezed the trigger.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Actually, I've read it's better to shoot with reading glasses on if you need them. Better sight picture.

I wear mine. Sites in focus, target fuzzy.

 

[1972 Grad]

Not really. Could just be muscle memory and range time. I'm nearsighted and can't read my dashboard without glasses so I've spent a lot of time practicing without them and can easily center mass out to 21 feet.

I'm not talking about just being able to hit the guy. Most anyone can do that. It wasn't just center mass. He hit something important for a one shot kill. There are several places a bullet can hit and not kill you. I'm pretty sure that the guy received medical attention in fairly short order.