Stand Your Ground Florida, Stand Your Ground

[Thermal]

I got this one, TBD:

A banana is a lethal weapon. You can poke an eye out with those things. And that hulking attacker was charging in to World Star banana-smash the doddering old man. With massive head trauma.

 

[Thermal]

Yeah, NO. Here it was a deliberate attack to the side against someone who was not in a defensive posture able to defend himself.

Take a gander: "The definition of a blindside block established by the committee is “a block against an opponent other than the runner, who does not see the blocker approaching,”

https://www.nfhs.org/articles/new-b...ss-risk-minimization-in-high-school-football/

But I was told that the victim "fell down" because of a "push."

Soooo...you think they were playing football? In context, blindside has a different meaning than the sporting definition. But you knew that.

Eta: fell down because of a push is an understatement, but not a gross one. Shoved and knocked down are more accurate, agreed

 

[The Big Dog]

I got this one, TBD:

A banana is a lethal weapon. You can poke an eye out with those things. And that hulking attacker was charging in to World Star banana-smash the doddering old man. With massive head trauma.

Cool story.

Golly, so many people want to diminish the initial attack, that left the victim on the concrete.

 

[Thermal]

Cool story.

Golly, so many people want to diminish the initial attack, that left the victim on the concrete.

No diminishing. It was a strong, aggressive battery. Just not lethal.

But come on....give us some more sports definitions to interpret it. What is the NFLs penalty for unnecessary roughness? A free gunshot at close range?

 

[The Big Dog]

No diminishing. It was a strong, aggressive battery. Just not lethal.

But come on....give us some more sports definitions to interpret it. What is the NFLs penalty for unnecessary roughness? A free gunshot at close range?

You provided your own subjective, slanted definition of a word.

I provided a reasonable, objective third party source so that you would understand what a blind side attack means.

Accept it or not, don't bother me no never mind.

As I stated when this whole thing began, I know one guy who died when his head hit the concrete, and another guy who suffered major brain damage and resulting hemiplegia.

 

[Thermal]

You provided your own subjective, slanted definition of a word.

I provided a reasonable, objective third party source so that you would understand what a blind side attack means.

Accept it or not, don't bother me no never mind.

As I stated when this whole thing began, I know one guy who died when his head hit the concrete, and another guy who suffered major brain damage and resulting hemiplegia.

My acceptance is irrelevant. It is objectively irrelevant. A sports committee's definition of a game's rules has no relevance whatsoever to assault and battery

 

[The Big Dog]

My acceptance is irrelevant. It is objectively irrelevant. A sports committee's definition of a game's rules has no relevance whatsoever to assault and battery

We were talking about the definition of the term blindside, and your prefer your own made up definition.

I provide an objective source, which you reject because of course.

Here is another: "the side away from which one is looking." Merriam Webster suffice? I am guessing not, huh.

 

[angrysoba]

the attacker was coming in for stomping time, and was stopped only because the gun was drawn,

You are certainly advocating for the shooter, but if you were his lawyer you would have just sent him down with that argument.

The attack was stopped, therefore there is no case for shooting the attacker.

He should be charged with murder or manslaughter.

 

[Dr. Keith]

logger must be so proud.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Golly, so many people want to diminish the initial attack, that left the victim on the concrete.

What's to diminish? This is the thing, the shove was over, done, fineto, and even you agree that once the gun was drawn the incident was over...

and was stopped only because the gun was drawn

So what's at issue here? The simple fact is that you can't legally shoot someone unless there is a reasonable fear for your life or that great bodily harm is about to be done to you, and even you agree that such an attack was "stopped... because the gun was drawn."

There was no attack about to happen, which even you have stated, the guy was clearly stepping backwards, thus it was not reasonable to believe that imminent death or serious bodily harm was about to occur.

This guy shot his attacker out of spite, adrenaline, and revenge, not because he had a reasonable fear.

On top of that the guy has form. He's previously argued with someone else that parked in the spot and in doing do threatened to shoot the person he was arguing with. It's clear he was a hothead with a gun who was itching to pull the trigger. This time he got an excuse to do so and did it.

 

[Thermal]

We were talking about the definition of the term blindside, and your prefer your own made up definition.

I provide an objective source, which you reject because of course.

Here is another: "the side away from which one is looking." Merriam Webster suffice? I am guessing not, huh.

Your objective sourse contains restricted and restrictive elements, including the 'runner', making it's application foolish.

Merriam's definition more or less matches mine. Blind side is the side where you are blind. Drejka was shoved square in the chest after McGlocklin slowly sauntered up to him at a right angle (not even trotting). Since they were squarely facing each other, are you suggesting Drejka...is legally blind?

Still waiting for those super relevant NFL rules on shooting. Cause, you know, relevant

 

[The Big Dog]

What's to diminish? This is the thing, the shove was over, done, fineto, and even you agree that once the gun was drawn the incident was over...

wrong.

The victim was obviously dealing with a very violent man, half his age and much larger than him, and had just been violently shoved to the concrete.

While it is quite easy for one to drone on expertly about what happened after the attack, but it ain't that easy

 

[PhantomWolf]

And if Florida has that BS rule that if you draw you must fire, well that really needs to go.

It doesn't.

The Law states that you can only threaten (e.g. draw a gun) or use deadly force (e.g. fire a gun) if there is a reasonable belief that your life is in imminent danger or you are about to suffer great bodily harm.

This means that there is certainly a case against warning shots (thought I would argue that's still a threat to use deadly force myself) but their is no case against merely presenting a firearm to deescalate a situation in which you have a reasonable believe you're about to be killed or seriously injured.

So even if you agree that the initial attack and what the attacker did prior to the gun being drawn amounted to a reasonable belief that the shooter was about to be killed or seriously harmed, that only justifies the drawing of the firearm.

Once the firearm was drawn, the attacker stopped, even stepped back, everyone here seemed to be in agreement there, even TBD agrees that the drawing of the gun ended the attack.

and was stopped only because the gun was drawn

So at that point we have an angry, Adrenalin spiked hothead, who already had previously showed that he was hoping to shoot someone, decide to get revenge for being shoved to the ground, and fired.

That is not self defense, that is Murder 2/Manslaughter.

 

[The Greater Fool]

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.

 

[PhantomWolf]

wrong.

The victim was obviously dealing with a very violent man, half his age and much larger than him, and had just been violently shoved to the concrete.

While it is quite easy for one to drone on expertly about what happened after the attack, but it ain't that easy

and was stopped only because the gun was drawn

Maybe you should argue with The Big Dog on this, he disagrees with you.

 

[The Big Dog]

The shooting victim parked illegally in a handicapped space.

wrong.

Start from the beginning.

 

[The Big Dog]

Maybe you should argue with The Big Dog on this, he disagrees with you.

No actually, there is no inconsistency, and if there were (and there was not) let me make it absolutely clear that the shooting was fully and necessary to stop the violent attack.

 

[The Greater Fool]

wrong.

Start from the beginning.

I didn't expect meaningful argument, and you don't disappoint.

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.

 

[The Big Dog]

I didn't expect meaningful argument, and you don't disappoint.

Meaningful? Get your facts straight. The very first line was wrong.

protip: he wasn't the driver.

 

[Foolmewunz]

No actually, there is no inconsistency, and if there were (and there was not) let me make it absolutely clear that the shooting was fully and necessary to stop the violent attack.

Nonsense. You said yourself that the drawing of the gun stopped the attack. At that point you say, "Back all the way off or I'll shoot" or something similar. He drew the gun, the guy backed away and/or certainly didn't make any forward motion whatsoever, and Quickdraw shot him. AFTER THE GUY STOPPED ANYTHING LIKE AN ATTACK.

That is all there is to it. Cops who shoot guys reaching for their ID have a better defense than this because there's no way this guy should have felt threatened. He had the drop on the guy. The guy had no visible weapon and was not reaching for one. The guy ceased anything remotely like aggressive motion.