(07-24-2018 12:45 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 12:21 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It appears the guy in the hat was suddenly attacked by the dead man and then the dead man stands over him.

It appears the shooting was justified.

You cannot blindside somebody and then stand over them without putting that person in reasonable fear for their life.

The dead guy appears to have been entirely responsible for what happened.

Now, it is still a tragedy that a person was killed but the lesson here is you cannot attack somebody and not expect something to happen to you.

The dead guy bet his life on being a tough guy and lost.

So standing up and doing nothing is an indication of lethal force? Really?

The guy coming out of the store walks over and shoves the shooter to the ground. Yep, criminal battery. At the least. No deadly weapon so it stays a simple battery.

The shover either 'stands there' or turns away. And somehow that, in your mind, is an 'escalation to lethal force' to a reasonable person? Sorry, nfw.

The shooter unreasonably escalated to lethal force. Unreasonable means no self-defense. Unreasonable means either felony level homicide of manslaughter.

There is a proverbial forest somewhere missing its frisbee.

(07-24-2018 02:36 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 12:21 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It appears the guy in the hat was suddenly attacked by the dead man and then the dead man stands over him.

It appears the shooting was justified.

You cannot blindside somebody and then stand over them without putting that person in reasonable fear for their life.

The dead guy appears to have been entirely responsible for what happened.

Now, it is still a tragedy that a person was killed but the lesson here is you cannot attack somebody and not expect something to happen to you.

The dead guy bet his life on being a tough guy and lost.

From the video it does appear that way.

But the situation would not have happened in the first place if the guy on the ground didn't have the self-appointed need to call people out for parking in a handicap spot.

If he didn't say a word and had simply walked past the car into the convenience store, the guy who died would have walked out with this 5YO son, got in the car and left.


Now, granted, that does not change the legal nature of what transpired.


I could also say if they hadn't parked in the handicap spot the self-appointed monitor dude wouldn't have stopped by the car.

In truth, his reason for engaging with them, the spot or not, is irrelevant.

(07-24-2018 01:42 PM)Lush Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 07:44 AM)pcm0103 Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 07:33 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 07:32 AM)pcm0103 Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 07:06 AM)VA49er Wrote:  Yes, ignore them. That is better than getting shot over something so silly. It really is that simple.

So protecting your family is silly?

How are you going to defend your family? Why can't you answer a basic question?

Because you already know the answer. The fact that I have to give details to a man on how to defend his family is really troublesome.

i'm with super. the best way to defend your family in that situation is to leave. what if you underestimate your opponent and get your ass handed to ya? no good to anyone. then your family has to deal with your ass. drive you to the hospital or something. you're being selfish. walk away

Or he could then turn on the family with you out of the way.

(07-24-2018 12:50 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 12:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 06:41 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 06:28 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Moral of the story don't physically attack someone else. They might out a gun and kill you.

Exactly right, and if under attack that person would be justified in defending himself.

In this case they are not.

The law is clear: you can use an equivalent amount of force in response to force. The person shove to ground clearly escalated to lethal force in response to non-lethal force.

Stand your ground isnt implicated here at all.

I believe you said you were a Atty? Wow! on your understanding of a law that is very clear you DONT have to fear for your life or react with the same amount of force....reasonably fearing great bodily harm is enough to use deathly force

If you practice in Fl. or one of the other states that has the SYG law you need to get back in school or read some law books

Being pushed to the ground is reasonably 'fearing great bodily harm'? Seriously?

By that standard if a mugger runs into me and tips me over, I have an unfettered right to draw down and ace him? Lolz. Not even close.

By the way, *no* stand your ground law allows a disproportionate escalation of force. Even the Florida law shows that 'comparable force' or 'reasonable escalation' is allowed.

'Stand your ground' only says that you do not have a duty to retreat first. It has no bearing whatsoever on disproportionate escalation, my friend. Look carefully at Florida XLVI Sec 776 a and b.

I will agree that the guy on the ground absolutely could have relied on 776a for use of non-deadly force.

You seemingly think that it is a reasonable belief that being pushed or pushed down is cause to think that 'imminent death' or 'imminent ... great bodily harm' is in the works. Got it. *That* is a serious stretch my good sir.

At the *very* least that is a question best left for jury. At the *very* least.

It is absolutely correct to charge the shooter in this case. No doubt whatsoever.

(07-24-2018 04:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 12:50 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 12:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 06:41 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 06:28 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Moral of the story don't physically attack someone else. They might out a gun and kill you.

Exactly right, and if under attack that person would be justified in defending himself.

In this case they are not.

The law is clear: you can use an equivalent amount of force in response to force. The person shove to ground clearly escalated to lethal force in response to non-lethal force.

Stand your ground isnt implicated here at all.

I believe you said you were a Atty? Wow! on your understanding of a law that is very clear you DONT have to fear for your life or react with the same amount of force....reasonably fearing great bodily harm is enough to use deathly force

If you practice in Fl. or one of the other states that has the SYG law you need to get back in school or read some law books

Being pushed to the ground is reasonably 'fearing great bodily harm'? Seriously?

By that standard if a mugger runs into me and tips me over, I have an unfettered right to draw down and ace him? Lolz. Not even close.

By the way, *no* stand your ground law allows a disproportionate escalation of force. Even the Florida law shows that 'comparable force' or 'reasonable escalation' is allowed.

'Stand your ground' only says that you do not have a duty to retreat first. It has no bearing whatsoever on disproportionate escalation, my friend. Look carefully at Florida XLVI Sec 776 a and b.

I will agree that the guy on the ground absolutely could have relied on 776a for use of non-deadly force.

You seemingly think that it is a reasonable belief that being pushed or pushed down is cause to think that 'imminent death' or 'imminent ... great bodily harm' is in the works. Got it. *That* is a serious stretch my good sir.

At the *very* least that is a question best left for jury. At the *very* least.

It is absolutely correct to charge the shooter in this case. No doubt whatsoever.

Being pushed to the ground is a felony assault. In this case, the perp sucker-punched the victim by pushing him VIOLENTLY to the ground when he had his back turned.

So the perp had already escalated this from being seeing his wife get reprimanded for illegal parking, to a VIOLENT FELONY ASSAULT.

(07-24-2018 04:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 12:50 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 12:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 06:41 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 06:28 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Moral of the story don't physically attack someone else. They might out a gun and kill you.

Exactly right, and if under attack that person would be justified in defending himself.

In this case they are not.

The law is clear: you can use an equivalent amount of force in response to force. The person shove to ground clearly escalated to lethal force in response to non-lethal force.

Stand your ground isnt implicated here at all.

I believe you said you were a Atty? Wow! on your understanding of a law that is very clear you DONT have to fear for your life or react with the same amount of force....reasonably fearing great bodily harm is enough to use deathly force

If you practice in Fl. or one of the other states that has the SYG law you need to get back in school or read some law books

Being pushed to the ground is reasonably 'fearing great bodily harm'? Seriously?

By that standard if a mugger runs into me and tips me over, I have an unfettered right to draw down and ace him? Lolz. Not even close.

By the way, *no* stand your ground law allows a disproportionate escalation of force. Even the Florida law shows that 'comparable force' or 'reasonable escalation' is allowed.

'Stand your ground' only says that you do not have a duty to retreat first. It has no bearing whatsoever on disproportionate escalation, my friend. Look carefully at Florida XLVI Sec 776 a and b.

I will agree that the guy on the ground absolutely could have relied on 776a for use of non-deadly force.

You seemingly think that it is a reasonable belief that being pushed or pushed down is cause to think that 'imminent death' or 'imminent ... great bodily harm' is in the works. Got it. *That* is a serious stretch my good sir.

At the *very* least that is a question best left for jury. At the *very* least.

It is absolutely correct to charge the shooter in this case. No doubt whatsoever.

You are 100% wrong on this

If you're really an atty you must know that the action and reaction aren't the only things involved or looked at. Other words he wasn't just knocked to the ground and shot the guy.

He wasn't only knocked to the ground the guy then walks over and stands above him and from the video you can see he is saying something. Now it might have been, can I help you up. But most likely a threat.

At that point the man on the ground draws his gun. There is no gun up till that point. So again its safe to assume the guy who committed the felony assault must have said something threatening.

At the point the gun comes of Mr felony assault take a step back, then he stops. At that point he's with a few feet of the man he just assaulted and then stood over threating.

The video clearly shows Mr felony assault saying something to the man on the ground. Again he could be asking can I help you up. I think we doth know that's not the case. Most likely another threat because at that point the man with the gun fires one shot into Mr felony assault's chest

So not only did he commit a felony assault, he also walks over to him, then stops his retreat and says something else.

So yes the man with the gun had reasonably fear of great bodily harm. Under Fl. SYG law that is all that is required.

Quote:Stand your ground
“a person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force, if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.”

Quote:So not only did he commit a felony assault, he also walks over to him, then stops his retreat and says something else.

By the way, the law says 'prevent the commission of a forcible felony'. Not 'retaliate because of a forcible felony'. Just a tad of a difference there as well.

So we have (at best) a forcible felony, then 'stops'. Then he gets shot.

Big timing issue in your conflation there.

So under your reading of 776 we need to read the word 'retaliate to' instead of 'prevent' forcible felony. Got it.
Under your reading of 776 we need to discern 'stop[ping]' (your words) as 'reasonable fear of death or imminent bodily injury' Got it.

Im glad to know that *you* think that pushing someone creates a 'reasonable fear of death or imminent bodily injury'. Got it.
Im glad to know that *you* think 'shooting after the fact' is 'prevention'. Got it.
Im glad to know that *you* think that your admittedly 'stopping' creates a 'reasonable fear of death or imminent bodily injury'. Got it.

Or is the 'stopping' the 'felony' that is stopped?

Your own admission of what happened here and the timing clearly points to this guy being unreasonable under 776.

If the guy had re-advanced on how with drawn fists or pulling something out of his pocket, you might be on firmer ground.

But your own admission is the guy who got shot 'isnt doing a thing' that fits under 776 "at the time of being shot".

Yelling 'if you do that again I'll kick your ass' is neither a sufficient threat, nor a felony. He pusher has clearly 'de-escalated' from the original violent act. That is startlingly obvious in the video, hell you even admit to it.

The timing is key here. Just saying.

At the very least this is a question for jury --- and to be honest the prosecution here has wonderful evidence, especially in light of your own description there.

(07-24-2018 04:30 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 04:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 12:50 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 12:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 06:41 AM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  Exactly right, and if under attack that person would be justified in defending himself.

In this case they are not.

The law is clear: you can use an equivalent amount of force in response to force. The person shove to ground clearly escalated to lethal force in response to non-lethal force.

Stand your ground isnt implicated here at all.

I believe you said you were a Atty? Wow! on your understanding of a law that is very clear you DONT have to fear for your life or react with the same amount of force....reasonably fearing great bodily harm is enough to use deathly force

If you practice in Fl. or one of the other states that has the SYG law you need to get back in school or read some law books

Being pushed to the ground is reasonably 'fearing great bodily harm'? Seriously?

By that standard if a mugger runs into me and tips me over, I have an unfettered right to draw down and ace him? Lolz. Not even close.

By the way, *no* stand your ground law allows a disproportionate escalation of force. Even the Florida law shows that 'comparable force' or 'reasonable escalation' is allowed.

'Stand your ground' only says that you do not have a duty to retreat first. It has no bearing whatsoever on disproportionate escalation, my friend. Look carefully at Florida XLVI Sec 776 a and b.

I will agree that the guy on the ground absolutely could have relied on 776a for use of non-deadly force.

You seemingly think that it is a reasonable belief that being pushed or pushed down is cause to think that 'imminent death' or 'imminent ... great bodily harm' is in the works. Got it. *That* is a serious stretch my good sir.

At the *very* least that is a question best left for jury. At the *very* least.

It is absolutely correct to charge the shooter in this case. No doubt whatsoever.

Being pushed to the ground is a felony assault. In this case, the perp sucker-punched the victim by pushing him VIOLENTLY to the ground when he had his back turned.

So the perp had already escalated this from being seeing his wife get reprimanded for illegal parking, to a VIOLENT FELONY ASSAULT.

The law in question doesnt insulate one for shooting after a 'completed felony'.
'Preventing' does not equate to 'retaliation for'.

Example: in your house you may shoot someone for the ongoing felony of burglary. If the act is complete, and the robber runs into the street and flips you the finger, the 'felony' is complete. Timing is everything in that branch of the law.

Zimmerman could use the SYG law for two reasons: one of which that Martin was committing (present tense) the literal attempted murder of Zimmerman. Had he stopped, and simply gotten up, then the tables turn since 'no felony' is being prevented at that time.... timing my friend, timing....

Yes the pusher may have committed (note the tense of the word) a felony. Shooting the dude 'after' that push doesnt 'prevent' the felony in the slightest.

The words in the SYG law in Fla specifically state that the act of self-defense must be to 'prevent' a felonious act; it doesnt say that 'reacting' or 'retaliating' to a felonious act is covered in the slightest by the statute.

Not trying to be antagonistic here, but the application of the SYG laws in general may not fit here. The wording of the Florida version does not seem to fit the timing and actions on the video. Just saying....

(07-24-2018 05:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 04:30 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 04:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 12:50 PM)WKUYG Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 12:39 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  In this case they are not.

The law is clear: you can use an equivalent amount of force in response to force. The person shove to ground clearly escalated to lethal force in response to non-lethal force.

Stand your ground isnt implicated here at all.

I believe you said you were a Atty? Wow! on your understanding of a law that is very clear you DONT have to fear for your life or react with the same amount of force....reasonably fearing great bodily harm is enough to use deathly force

If you practice in Fl. or one of the other states that has the SYG law you need to get back in school or read some law books

Being pushed to the ground is reasonably 'fearing great bodily harm'? Seriously?

By that standard if a mugger runs into me and tips me over, I have an unfettered right to draw down and ace him? Lolz. Not even close.

By the way, *no* stand your ground law allows a disproportionate escalation of force. Even the Florida law shows that 'comparable force' or 'reasonable escalation' is allowed.

'Stand your ground' only says that you do not have a duty to retreat first. It has no bearing whatsoever on disproportionate escalation, my friend. Look carefully at Florida XLVI Sec 776 a and b.

I will agree that the guy on the ground absolutely could have relied on 776a for use of non-deadly force.

You seemingly think that it is a reasonable belief that being pushed or pushed down is cause to think that 'imminent death' or 'imminent ... great bodily harm' is in the works. Got it. *That* is a serious stretch my good sir.

At the *very* least that is a question best left for jury. At the *very* least.

It is absolutely correct to charge the shooter in this case. No doubt whatsoever.

Being pushed to the ground is a felony assault. In this case, the perp sucker-punched the victim by pushing him VIOLENTLY to the ground when he had his back turned.

So the perp had already escalated this from being seeing his wife get reprimanded for illegal parking, to a VIOLENT FELONY ASSAULT.

The law in question doesnt insulate one for shooting after a 'completed felony'.
'Preventing' does not equate to 'retaliation for'.

Example: in your house you may shoot someone for the ongoing felony of burglary. If the act is complete, and the robber runs into the street and flips you the finger, the 'felony' is complete. Timing is everything in that branch of the law.

Zimmerman could use the SYG law for two reasons: one of which that Martin was committing (present tense) the literal attempted murder of Zimmerman. Had he stopped, and simply gotten up, then the tables turn since 'no felony' is being prevented at that time.... timing my friend, timing....

Yes the pusher may have committed (note the tense of the word) a felony. Shooting the dude 'after' that push doesnt 'prevent' the felony in the slightest.

The words in the SYG law in Fla specifically state that the act of self-defense must be to 'prevent' a felonious act; it doesnt say that 'reacting' or 'retaliating' to a felonious act is covered in the slightest by the statute.

Not trying to be antagonistic here, but the application of the SYG laws in general may not fit here. The wording of the Florida version does not seem to fit the timing and actions on the video. Just saying....

For the love of humanity, the Zimmerman case wasnt even stand your ground.

I dont know why you keep trying to read between lines that do not exist. The perp committed a felony, and did not flee. That means he is still a clear and present danger.

The shooter was wrong. After he was pushed the perp walked back even before the shooter took out his gun. If anything the shooter should have called the cops and kept the perp at bay with his gun so as to not get hurt again. Second degree murder.

(07-24-2018 06:11 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  The shooter was wrong. After he was pushed the perp walked back even before the shooter took out his gun. If anything the shooter should have called the cops and kept the perp at bay with his gun so as to not get hurt again. Second degree murder.

The shooter is absolutely in the wrong.
The moment the gun was pulled the attacker took a step back.
The attacker retreated and there was a deescalation of the situation.

He should have held him at bay and called the cops

Real life. No jury would convict the shooter no mattter how many legal theories y'all write on the head of a pin.

(07-24-2018 06:13 PM)DragonLair Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 06:11 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  The shooter was wrong. After he was pushed the perp walked back even before the shooter took out his gun. If anything the shooter should have called the cops and kept the perp at bay with his gun so as to not get hurt again. Second degree murder.

The shooter is absolutely in the wrong.
The moment the gun was pulled the attacker took a step back.
The attacker retreated and there was a deescalation of the situation.

He should have held him at bay and called the cops

The law states otherwise. If you dont like what happened, you can do two things; change the law, or dont go round assaulting people from behind.

I don’t think of Zimmerman as a SYG case. As I saw it, the prosecution proved two things, 1) that George Zimmerman got out of his car with a gun, and 2) that at some subsequent point, Trayvon Martin was killed by a bullet from that gun. I don’t see where either side produced credible evidence as to what transpired between those two events. The prosecution has to produce such evidence to get a criminal conviction, and the defense has to produce evidence to avail itself of SYG. I don’t see where either side did that. I can see where you might be able to get negligent homicide if you can convince a jury that Zimmerman was negligent to leave his car and that death or grave harm to someone was a reasonably foreseeable outcome of such negligence. Or even possibly manslaughter if you can convince a jury that Zimmerman’s act was reckless. But that’s about it.

More than a SYG case, it was a 5th Amendment case. The only living eyewitness was Zimmerman, and ain’t testifying.

Simple questions and simple answers. Would a cop be charged with murder here? Probably so. Would a cop shoot you here? Probably not. Well a white racist cop probably would. Option 1b would be get up and fight since most of them are thugs waiting to fight anyway. Option 1a is pull the gun and make the arrest. This coward ass fake cop should be charged with murder and impersonating an officer.

(07-24-2018 06:10 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  [quote='tanqtonic' pid='15397674' dateline='1532473020']
[quote='UofMstateU' pid='15397560' dateline='1532467820']
The perp committed a felony, and did not flee.

Again, an utterly immaterial fact. Good for you.

So in the other hypo, the robber who races out of your house, and turns around in your yard has 'committed and felony' and '[is] not flee[ing]' so that shooting would also be justified. Got it.

Again, doesnt fit the SYG exception.

The shooter should absolutely be charged in this one. You seemingly have this overriding urge to state 'but but but but ----- he committed a FELONY'. Wrong tense. The law says 'prevent', not 'react to one that happened'.

And if *you* think it is reasonable to say that someone who has 'stop[ped]' and is simply standing there is 'an imminent threat of death or great bodily injury', then I would say that is an utterly stupid view of what is reasonable.

(07-24-2018 06:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don’t think of Zimmerman as a SYG case. As I saw it, the prosecution proved two things, 1) that George Zimmerman got out of his car with a gun, and 2) that at some subsequent point, Trayvon Martin was killed by a bullet from that gun. I don’t see where either side produced credible evidence as to what transpired between those two events. The prosecution has to produce such evidence to get a criminal conviction, and the defense has to produce evidence to avail itself of SYG. I don’t see where either side did that. I can see where you might be able to get negligent homicide if you can convince a jury that Zimmerman was negligent to leave his car and that death or grave harm to someone was a reasonably foreseeable outcome of such negligence. Or even possibly manslaughter if you can convince a jury that Zimmerman’s act was reckless. But that’s about it.

More than a SYG case, it was a 5th Amendment case. The only living eyewitness was Zimmerman, and ain’t testifying.

There was one witness saying someone was getting his head banged repeatedly against the concrete. He just couldn't confirm it was Zimmerman, but his injuries were consistent with him being on the bottom.

(07-24-2018 06:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I don’t think of Zimmerman as a SYG case. As I saw it, the prosecution proved two things, 1) that George Zimmerman got out of his car with a gun, and 2) that at some subsequent point, Trayvon Martin was killed by a bullet from that gun. I don’t see where either side produced credible evidence as to what transpired between those two events. The prosecution has to produce such evidence to get a criminal conviction, and the defense has to produce evidence to avail itself of SYG. I don’t see where either side did that. I can see where you might be able to get negligent homicide if you can convince a jury that Zimmerman was negligent to leave his car and that death or grave harm to someone was a reasonably foreseeable outcome of such negligence. Or even possibly manslaughter if you can convince a jury that Zimmerman’s act was reckless. But that’s about it.

More than a SYG case, it was a 5th Amendment case. The only living eyewitness was Zimmerman, and ain’t testifying.

Zimmerman's testimony that Martin was bashing his head into the concrete is a good hypo to illustrate the SYG principle. Both prongs of it. That was my only point.

(07-24-2018 06:13 PM)DragonLair Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 06:11 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  The shooter was wrong. After he was pushed the perp walked back even before the shooter took out his gun. If anything the shooter should have called the cops and kept the perp at bay with his gun so as to not get hurt again. Second degree murder.

The shooter is absolutely in the wrong.
The moment the gun was pulled the attacker took a step back.
The attacker retreated and there was a deescalation of the situation.

He should have held him at bay and called the cops

Ahem, I think I posted that already. But thanks for agreeing.

(07-24-2018 06:18 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 06:13 PM)DragonLair Wrote:  

(07-24-2018 06:11 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  The shooter was wrong. After he was pushed the perp walked back even before the shooter took out his gun. If anything the shooter should have called the cops and kept the perp at bay with his gun so as to not get hurt again. Second degree murder.

The shooter is absolutely in the wrong.
The moment the gun was pulled the attacker took a step back.
The attacker retreated and there was a deescalation of the situation.

He should have held him at bay and called the cops

The law states otherwise. If you dont like what happened, you can do two things; change the law, or dont go round assaulting people from behind.

The law states that the actions are justified to 'prevent a felony' or, when deadly force is employed, that the 'responding victim' must have a 'reasonable fear' of death or great bodily injury due to the attack.

There was no 'prevention of an ongoing felony', and you think that simply standing there jawing is an 'imminent threat of bodily injury'.

We will see what the state attorney thinks.