Stand Your Ground Florida, Stand Your Ground

[gregthehammer]

It is a direct inference from the video.

No. Not once. Not ever.

 

[Ziggurat]

Because some of us think it is funny when people try to deliberately mislead by taking a clause out of context.

WorldStar style stomping was stopped by a guy with a gun

This is speculation, but assuming it is true, drawing the gun sufficed. Firing it was unnecessary. You have never addressed this.

You are losing this one, TBD.

 

[The Big Dog]

This is speculation, but assuming it is true, drawing the gun sufficed. Firing it was unnecessary. You have never addressed this.

You are losing this one, TBD.

You do realize that basically all you are saying is that your opinion differs from my analysis and the Sheriff's analysis. I get that people can differ, i assume you do too.

The only ones "losing" anything are the ones whose 'analysis" seems to be little more than conclusions wrapped up in false claims.

 

[dudalb]

ST, we know full well that you are happy to see a black person shot dead. In many other instances this would be an unfair strawman, but in your case it is not.

There is no worthwhile discussion to be had here with you.

Except for the gallows humor that might be had from their sheer craziness. that can be said of all Neo Nazis.

 

[dudalb]

No. Not once. Not ever.

This.
I am a lot more willing then many here to give the benefit of the doubt to somebody acting in self defense,but no way was this shooting justified.

 

[Meadmaker]

I was going to reply, but decided it wasn't worth it to actually try to win the argument.

I believe the State's Attorney's office is going to prosecute the case. When that happens, the knee jerk right wing will cry foul. At that point, let's see where the radio yappers jump in. If they don't carry the torch for Drejka, like they did for Zimmerman, you'll know that he doesn't have a legal prayer.

So far, I haven't heard any of them taking his side, but until charges are filed, that's understandable.

 

[dudalb]

it is interesting that two of the guys here who are trying to justify the shooting are also our biggest "Trump can do now wrong" club members.

 

[Ziggurat]

You do realize that basically all you are saying is that your opinion differs from my analysis and the Sheriff's analysis. I get that people can differ, i assume you do too.

The only ones "losing" anything are the ones whose 'analysis" seems to be little more than conclusions wrapped up in false claims.

No, TBD, I am saying more than that. Your argument does not address a critical point I have brought up. And the Sheriff is an idiot. See my links from early in the thread for why.

The fact that some of your opponents are also wrong doesn't make you right.

 

[The Big Dog]

No, TBD, I am saying more than that. Your argument does not address a critical point I have brought up. And the Sheriff is an idiot. See my links from early in the thread for why.

The fact that some of your opponents are also wrong doesn't make you right.

All your critical point is doing is parsing out the video and coming to an opinion that firing it was not necessary. Again, you are welcome to your opinion, but given the fact that we have just seen the victim laid out on the concrete all that is Monday Morning Quarterbacking.

 

[Ziggurat]

All your critical point is doing is parsing out the video and coming to an opinion that firing it was not necessary. Again, you are welcome to your opinion, but given the fact that we have just seen the victim laid out on the concrete all that is Monday Morning Quarterbacking.

Let's look at this from the moment the gun was drawn. Where was the target? What was the target doing? The target was some distance away, and retreating. Do you dispute this?

Now, what did the shooter do? Did he fire right away? No, he did not. He paused. Within the time of that pause, he could have assessed that the target was not advancing. He could have recognized that the drawn gun was sufficient to protect him. He could have refrained from firing, because it wasn't necessary in order to protect himself. He SHOULD HAVE done all of this. It would have been neither difficult nor risky to do so.

But he didn't, and now a man is dead, and the shooter may well end up in prison for a long time.

As for Monday morning quarterbacking, we are supposed to do that. We are supposed to evaluate his actions, and determine whether they were reasonable. And based on the available evidence, they were not.

I'm not like Mumbles. I don't see every shooting of an unarmed black man as a racist murder. I think the Zimmerman verdict was correct, and I think the Micheal Brown shooting was justified. But you're being just as reflexively defensive about the issue as Mumbles is being reflexively critical. It's not a good look.

 

[Reactor drone]

The shooting victim parked illegally in a handicapped space. To say this 'started' the episode is beyond ridiculous. The shooter had no legal authority to take any action against illegal parking. None. The MOST he should have done is call the police NON-EMERGENCY number to report it. That's it. Any confrontation was [what turned out to be] an armed man stewing for a fight.

Then, the shooter starts yelling at the PASSENGER in the car. What control did she have over the choice of parking space? Why yell at a passenger that had no choice or control over where the car was parked? It is irrational on the face of it. The shooter began this by acting irrationally.

The victim came out of the store seeing an irrationally angry man yelling at his spousal unit. In such a highly charged state I can see how he may have pushed the shooter harder than intended when trying to push the shooter away from his spousal unit.

Then irrationally angry man gets angrier and pulls a gun and commits, minimally, manslaughter.

wrong.

Start from the beginning.

The Greater fool was indeed wrong. The shooting victim did not park the car in a disabled spot. The woman was not the passenger.

Also, where are we getting the audio from as to who was shouting at who?

 

[The Big Dog]

Now, what did the shooter do? Did he fire right away? No, he did not. He paused. Within the time of that pause, he could have assessed that the target was not advancing. He could have recognized that the drawn gun was sufficient to protect him. He could have refrained from firing, because it wasn't necessary in order to protect himself. He SHOULD HAVE done all of this. It would have been neither difficult nor risky to do so.

You did not mention anything about the attack while concluding what he "could" have done and "should" have done.

 

[Ziggurat]

You did not mention anything about the attack while concluding what he "could" have done and "should" have done.

I have before, but you ignored my previous posts. The attack was over after he pulled the gun. No matter what the target had previously done, after the gun was drawn he presented no continuing threat sufficient to justify the shooting. You can't use deadly force for revenge. Speculation that he might have continued to attack if there was no gun don't matter, because there was. The drawn gun sufficed to end the conflict. Shooting was disproportionate and unjustified.

 

[angrysoba]

You do realize that basically all you are saying is that your opinion differs from my analysis and the Sheriff's analysis. I get that people can differ, i assume you do too.

The only ones "losing" anything are the ones whose 'analysis" seems to be little more than conclusions wrapped up in false claims.

No, your opinion is in conflict with your own analysis. You are of the opinion that shooting was necessary even though your own analysis concluded that the attack stopped the moment the gun was drawn. Your opinion makes no sense and appears to be the result of motivated reasoning. You think the guy got what he deserved because he was parked in a handicapped zone and because he “blindsided” the shooter. But it is not justified purely on your antipathy to the victim. It can only be justified on self-defense grounds according to the relevant law and you have negated the self-defense grounds by saying the attack had stopped.

 

[PhantomWolf]

You did not mention anything about the attack while concluding what he "could" have done and "should" have done.

Because at the end of the day the attack is irrelevant to if pulling the trigger was justified.

Again, if I walk up behind you and whack you with a baseball bat, then drop the bat disengage, you aren't justified in shooting me.

Even if I walk up behind you and whack you with a baseball bat and then only drop the bat and back up when you go for a gun, you still aren't justified in shooting me.

You are only justified in shooting me if after you draw the gun, I take another swing at you.

If I am unarmed and backing up, it's called Murder 2. Maybe, if you get a nice prosecutor or Jury, Manslaughter.

Deal with it.

 

[The Big Dog]

Because at the end of the day the attack is irrelevant to if pulling the trigger was justified.

Again, if I walk up behind you and whack you with a baseball bat, then drop the bat disengage, you aren't justified in shooting me.

Even if I walk up behind you and whack you with a baseball bat and then only drop the bat and back up when you go for a gun, you still aren't justified in shooting me.

You are only justified in shooting me if after you draw the gun, I take another swing at you.

If I am unarmed and backing up, it's called Murder 2. Maybe, if you get a nice prosecutor or Jury, Manslaughter.

Deal with it.

Wrong.

Deal with it.

 

[Ziggurat]

Wrong.

Deal with it.

No, TBD, he's not wrong. And you seem to be the one not dealing with it.

I don't know why you're so invested in this case, but you aren't approaching this rationally.

Edited by kmortis: 

Removed to comply with Rule 12

 

[The Big Dog]

I do not recall a thread where people are so enamoured with their opinions based on after the fact speculation that completely ignores the dominant issue here, which was the unprovoked attack on the victim.

Not a good look for most here.

 

[sir drinks-a-lot]

I do not recall a thread where people are so enamoured with their opinions based on after the fact speculation that completely ignores the dominant issue here, which was the unprovoked attack on the victim.

I'd agree that the attack was (mostly) unprovoked. But I don't think that is the dominant issue.

 

[angrysoba]

I do not recall a thread where people are so enamoured with their opinions based on after the fact speculation that completely ignores the dominant issue here, which was the unprovoked attack on the victim.

Not a good look for most here.

Let's assume that the attack was unprovoked.

Then let's add to that your conclusion that the attack was stopped.

What justification remains for the shooting?