Stand Your Ground Florida, Stand Your Ground

[Brainster]

Edited by jsfisher: 

...SNIP... Moderated content redacted.

In any other state in the USA the man would be in jail right now. Except maybe Texas. And that is a maybe.

So, logically, if every other state does not have this ****, then Florida law IS different.

You just spout off like that without checking things first, on a skeptics forum? In fact, stand your ground laws are generally the rule in the USA:

The states that have legislatively adopted stand-your-ground laws are Alabama,[5] Alaska,[6] Arizona,[7] Florida,[8] Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa,[9] Kansas,[10] Kentucky, Louisiana,[7] Michigan,[7] Mississippi, Missouri,[11] Montana,[7] Nevada, New Hampshire,[7] North Carolina,[12] Oklahoma,[7] Pennsylvania,[13] South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee,[7] Texas,[14] Utah,[15] West Virginia[7], and Wyoming.[16]

The states that have adopted stand-your-ground in practice,[17] either through case law/precedent, jury instructions or by other means, are California,[18][19] Colorado,[20][21] Illinois, New Mexico, Oregon, Virginia,[22] and Washington.

That's over 2/3rds of the states. But I suspect the outcome would be the same in many of the "duty to retreat" states. At the point the video ends, the shooter has already been the victim of assault and battery, captured on video.

 

[This is The End]

Seems like a classic case of stand your ground

Using that logic the woman would also be justified in shooting the stranger who appeared at her car window yelling violently.

Why is she not also allowed to be in fear for her life? Oh yeah. I forgot. Because of racism.

 

[This is The End]

What if there were a 50 year old white couple in the car? The man goes into the gas station. A 25 year old black male approaches the car and starts yelling violently at the 50 year old white woman in the car. The white man sees this from inside the gas station, runs outside to push the 25 year old black male away from his 50 year old white wife. The 25 year old black male then shoots the 50 year old white male dead.

Guess who would be in jail right now? Even in Florida. We wouldn't even know of the story right now.

The husband had no idea if the man outside was committing a robbery or what. That is the important point. He is justified in running outside and removing the violently yelling man from his wife via one shove. I believe the state attorney will do the right thing because of that.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Edited by jsfisher: 

...SNIP... Moderated content redacted.

I posted the law above, it's not different to most of the rest of the US. The only difference to some States is that the threatened person doesn't have a duty to retreat from a place they are legally allowed to be.

Here's the law, again.

(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

This is Califorina's

Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases:

(1) When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person.

or New York's

2. A person may not use deadly physical force upon another person under circumstances specified in subdivision one unless:

(a) The actor reasonably believes that such other person is using or about to use deadly physical force.  Even in such case, however, the actor may not use deadly physical force if he or she knows that with complete personal safety, to oneself and others he or she may avoid the necessity of so doing by retreating;  except that the actor is under no duty to retreat if he or she is:

(i) in his or her dwelling and not the initial aggressor;  or

(ii) a police officer or peace officer or a person assisting a police officer or a peace officer at the latter's direction, acting pursuant to section 35.30 ;  or

(b) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible criminal sexual act or robbery;  or

(c) He or she reasonably believes that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary, and the circumstances are such that the use of deadly physical force is authorized by subdivision three of section 35.20.

Here's Ohio's no duty to retreat....

(B) For purposes of any section of the Revised Code that sets forth a criminal offense, a person who lawfully is in that person's residence has no duty to retreat before using force in self-defense, defense of another, or defense of that person's residence, and a person who lawfully is an occupant of that person's vehicle or who lawfully is an occupant in a vehicle owned by an immediate family member of the person has no duty to retreat before using force in self-defense or defense of another.

so yeah...

 

[lionking]

Look at the video. The dead guy blindsides the shooter. Seems like a classic case of stand your ground, except that the shooter couldn't stand his ground, he had already been knocked over.

From other comments, it sounds like the shooter is something of a handicapped parking spot activist; I'm assuming since neither of the articles I read on the incident mention it explicitly, the car in question did not have a handicapped plate.

From some of the posts of yours, you sound like someone who would take no nonsense from anyone harassing a loved one. What would you do? Meekly ask the culprit to desist? Or would you take some physical action? My money’s on the latter. Was the action of the victim so unreasonable?

Oh, and “blindsided”? This has been used a few times here. Are the Marquis of Queensbury rules to be invoked when someone decides to physically intervene?

 

[Brainster]

Using that logic the woman would also be justified in shooting the stranger who appeared at her car window yelling violently.

Why is she not also allowed to be in fear for her life? Oh yeah. I forgot. Because of racism.

No, actually she would have something of a case. From what I've read, the shooter seems to be a fanatic about the whole handicapped spot thing. I used to be a dick about people parking in bike lanes, so I can sympathize to a bit. But instead she gets out of the car and starts arguing with the guy, indicating that she was not in fear. And I do think "Yelling violently" is a bit much; we don't have audio of the incident.

And I can sympathize with the concept that the deceased comes out to find his girlfriend in an argument with a guy he's going to defend her. But he goes way beyond that. Knocking the shooter over that violently on a paved parking lot--you could easily give him a concussion.

 

[mikado]

American idiocy. Very sad.
What happened to Camelot?
Wphow the hell did they end up here?

 

[Brainster]

From some of the posts of yours, you sound like someone who would take no nonsense from anyone harassing a loved one. What would you do? Meekly ask the culprit to desist?

I would shoot him dead. No, seriously, there's a simple other answer. "What's the problem here? Oh, is this a handicapped spot? We'll be out of here in a moment." Or, you could always not park in a handicapped spot. I know, I know that's following the Marquis of Parksbury rules.

Or would you take some physical action? My money’s on the latter. Was the action of the victim so unreasonable?

I'd say that's pretty clearly several years in prison. How hard is it to deescalate the situation?

Oh, and “blindsided”? This has been used a few times here. Are the Marquis of Queensbury rules to be invoked when someone decides to physically intervene?

Who was the first person to use physical force? Watch the video again, just in case you need to be sure. And yeah, blindsided actually matters in assault cases. It seems there's some sort of quaint custom that hitting somebody unawares is nastier than facing off with them in a gentlemanly fashion. Might have something to do with it being more hazardous to the victim.

 

[chrispy]

This appears to be bull-****. The man was pushed over, and the deceased was standing away, not attacking, and telling the man on the ground to get **********... and then he was executed. Keep lookin' good, Florida. Keep Lookin' good.

 

[This is The End]

The only difference to some States is that the threatened person doesn't have a duty to retreat from a place they are legally allowed to be.

I love how "the only difference" you bring up is the exact ****** difference in question".

I'm not playing this damn game.

The funniest part about this line of damage control is that every single mainstream media news outlet would have to be wrong about Florida being different as well.

Oh wait.

I just described Trump nation.

 

[This is The End]

It's only on page 2 and the line of damage control is clear.

Normalize the law. Try and make it appear that the law is just like it is in every other state.

Don't fall for that ****** ****.

Don't forget how easy it is to show them for what they are:

What if there were a 50 year old white couple in the car? The man goes into the gas station. A 25 year old black male approaches the car and starts yelling violently at the 50 year old white woman in the car. The white man sees this from inside the gas station, runs outside to push the 25 year old black male away from his 50 year old white wife. The 25 year old black male then shoots the 50 year old white male dead.

Guess who would be in jail right now? Even in Florida. We wouldn't even know of the story right now.

 

[Brainster]

It's only on page 2 and the line of damage control is clear.

Normalize the law. Try and make it appear that the law is just like it is in every other state.

Don't fall for that ****** ****.

Don't forget how easy it is to show them for what they are:

 

[Hungry81]

Yes, shooting someone is crazy and should not be the default response to being shoved

 

[Brainster]

Yes, shooting someone is crazy and should not be the default response to being shoved

You seem like a reasonable person. Since the OP is apparently incapable of explaining the vast differences between Florida's "stand your ground law" and the similar laws in 33 other states, perhaps you could take on the challenge. Do you agree with his claim that in no other state, (except perhaps Texas) would the shooter be free?

And let's not call it a shove--it was a push, a tap, a horizontal adjustment to the shooter's vertical ambience.

 

[Craig4]

That's the problem right there.

All kidding aside, do you have a link? I'm too lazy to google.

Never mind, I found this one:

https://www.tampabay.com/news/publi...rgument-over-handicap-parking-space_170174041

Sounds like the white guy was looking for trouble. McGlockton shouldn't have shoved him, but he didn't deserve to get shot for it.

The guy was clearly backing away when he got shot. The shooter was clearly no longer in any peril when he fired.

I also have to wonder if the situation escalated because the shooter had a gun. Unarmed, would he have been so aggressive? I guessing not. Likely another case of firearm used as substitute for social skills.

 

[Foolmewunz]

The guy was clearly backing away when he got shot. The shooter was clearly no longer in any peril when he fired.

I also have to wonder if the situation escalated because the shooter had a gun. Unarmed, would he have been so aggressive? I guessing not. Likely another case of firearm used as substitute for social skills.

Hearsay evidence from the guy who worked in the store but same dood previously threatened to shoot someone else while arguing over parking in that same spot (without a handicap tag/plate).

Seems that yeah, his piece makes him a little more confrontational.


I have to say that I really appreciate TBD's analogy with NFL penalties. Can we arm quarterbacks in Dolphins games? "Well, he'd just pushed me to the ground and his buddy had knocked over my center and right tackle so I was in fear of my well-being or even my life. So, yeah, I shot 'im."

Worst analogy ever.

 

[Skeptic Tank]

Just watched the video.

Looks to be a case of three total dummies. Ghetto couple who jump right to loud argument and physical violence when faced with an annoying busy-body.

The annoying busy-body, I do not like that type... but someone who is passionate about scolding others for using handicapped spots is far from the worst thing out there. Who knows, maybe their elderly mother has been unable to find a spot multiple times because an able-bodied person had taken it, or something. Now it's their pet issue. Or maybe they just like conflict. I don't know. I wouldn't determine a person to be awful just because they have a passion about that issue or similar things. In fact, society probably depends on those instincts to function.

The guy coming out and blind-side pushing an older guy to the ground is absurd. Someone like that being removed from the planet is probably all around a good thing.

However, it seemed to me based on the video that at the moment he chose to pull the trigger, it was an absurd choice. I mean I don't really mind, because of who he killed, but I would not have pulled the trigger at the point he did, or under the conditions he did, when the guy had backed away. But I know there are a lot of weird laws that basically put you in a "once you pull it, you better fire it" situation and all manner of dumbness like that.

I think drawing the pistol made sense, and holding the guy at gunpoint probably made sense. Firing didn't seem rational at the point he did it, and I would not have done so in order to avoid legal perils if I had been in that situation. I probably wouldn't have even drawn the weapon, but who knows.

Even though he screwed up and it was dumb to shoot, I hope he gets away with it and I hope it angers people hugely.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I wonder why he felt so strongly about the disabled parking spot? Disabled friend or relative, sanctimonious busy body, or just looking for a fight?

In the video it looks as though the mother gets out of the car to argue with him which seems to indicate she doesn't see him as a threat.

It seems to me that no one in this situation acted reasonably, parking in the disabled space and refusing to move, escalating a verbal confrontation to a physical one, and finally, the introduction of lethal weapons.

In my opinion this killing should not go untried, but the circumstances need to be taken into account, premeditation doesn't seem likely and I don't think malice aforethought could be established. I'm no lawyer, but given that the killer was physically attacked but responded inappropriately I think Voluntary Manslaughter would be the most appropriate charge.

I am now ready to be attacked from both sides.

 

[Hlafordlaes]

Take away the gun culture, and this is a mere shoving match and ends without tragedy. Add back that culture, and the death penalty is seen as a normal outcome, including the orphaned child. Nice "culture." Bet Ugluk is smiling in his shallow cave pit.

 

[Mojo]

Unbelievable. What results in an advantage for the fowled team in a sport should be met with capital punishment in your worldview?

Are you calling footballers chicken?