Stand Your Ground Florida, Stand Your Ground

[Drewbot]

They can't even arrest him. Unless they can provide clear and convincing evidence that the person didn't think they were in imminent danger. I agree this is a questionable use of the SYG law. But, I have no way to overcome the shooter's claim that he thought he was in danger. The video of the violent push is enough for me to believe his claim that he thought he was.

once a prima facie claim of self-defense immunity from criminal prosecution has been raised by the defendant at a pretrial immunity hearing, the burden of proof by clear and convincing evidence is on the party seeking to overcome the immunity from criminal prosecution provided in subsection

 

[rdwight]

I am not sure why no one has pointed out that Florida's SYG has two parts. I have seen the second portion quoted but not the first -

(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.

That sure sounds a hell of a lot more like the situation than the second. And there is a reason there are two parts to the law. Ignoring the first part to justify the second as if it is the only option seems.. yea. A guy that shoved you and is no longer attacking, nor advancing, seems to come pretty short of a reasonable fear of death or serious injury.

Anyone that can watch that video and feel deadly force was justified and reasonable is beyond my level of understanding.

 

[Thermal]

then they could have been coming at "right angles" then?

Oh dear, it would appear that one has been hoisted on own's own petard...

Blindside mean on the "side" "plus or minus."

All'alba vincerò!
Vincerà!
Vincerò!

So if you get hit on the side, that's a blindside, coach? And we can open fire, coach? We've been practicing target shooting on the sidelines, coach.

 

[Meadmaker]

They can't even arrest him. Unless they can provide clear and convincing evidence that the person didn't think they were in imminent danger. I agree this is a questionable use of the SYG law. But, I have no way to overcome the shooter's claim that he thought he was in danger. The video of the violent push is enough for me to believe his claim that he thought he was.

The applicable legal standard is not whether that person feared for his life. The applicable legal standard is whether a reasonable person in that situation would have had a fear for his life.

 

[Meadmaker]

So if you get hit on the side, that's a blindside, coach? And we can open fire, coach? We've been practicing target shooting on the sidelines, coach.

That's the bizarre thing about this whole "blindsided" discussion. It has no relevance, legally or morally.

 

[The Big Dog]

That's the bizarre thing about this whole "blindsided" discussion. It has no relevance, legally or morally.

Of course it does, as I have already explained, it was an unprovoked attack on someone who was in no position to defend himself.

this should be obvious.

 

[3point14]

Of course it does, as I have already explained, it was an unprovoked attack on someone who was in no position to defend himself.

this should be obvious.

What, in your opinion, is the minimum amount of contact / violence that warrants deadly response?

 

[This is The End]

who is lifted off his feet and sent sprawling on the concrete several feet away from where he was standing

None of that happened.

 

[This is The End]

What's the minimum amount of physical confrontation to warrant deadly response?

Sub Saharan ancestry?

ding ding ding ding!!

We have a winner.

 

[This is The End]

Why would you take a case to the jury where the cops investigating all agree that the man who shot, thought his life was in danger?

Because of a history of racism.

 

[This is The End]

They can't even arrest him. Unless they can provide clear and convincing evidence that the person didn't think they were in imminent danger.

Therefore, in Florida, according to Drewbot, you can kill anyone you want to as long as you are alone with that person with no witnesses.

That or Drewbot is wrong... hmmm. I wonder which one it is.

 

[The Big Dog]

None of that happened.

Everyone

Ignore the scene from 1:36 to 1:42 on this video, I was told none of it happened

https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=sqPbL_1532105651&theme_id=0

well argued.

 

[Thermal]

Of course it does, as I have already explained, it was an unprovoked attack on someone who was in no position to defend himself.

this should be obvious.

The someone who wad in no position to defend himself is currently cleaning his gun

 

[Thermal]

The applicable legal standard is not whether that person feared for his life. The applicable legal standard is whether a reasonable person in that situation would have had a fear for his life.

Extremely important distinction, often overlooked

 

[This is The End]

Of course it does, as I have already explained, it was an unprovoked attack on someone who was in no position to defend himself.

That is incorrect. It was neither unprovoked nor an attack. The shove was not an attack. It was a shove in defense of his spouse. The shove was not unprovoked. It was provoked by the shooter verbally attacking his wife.


Remember, the witness ran into the store yelling that someone is messing with the woman in the car. The spouse would have no idea if his wife was merely being verbally abused or perhaps in the middle of a robbery. The spouse had more than enough information to push the shooter away from her.

Especially considering there were 2 babies in the car with her.

Everyone should note that the people doing damage control for the shooter in this thread consider 5 seconds to be not enough time for the shooter to think; but 5 seconds is also how much time the spouse had to think when running outside to protect her.

 

[This is The End]

Everyone

Ignore the scene from 1:36 to 1:42 on this video, I was told none of it happened

https://www.liveleak.com/view?t=sqPbL_1532105651&theme_id=0

well argued.

The man shoving the shooter to protect his family happened.

Your description of it, on the other hand, did not.

 

[The Big Dog]

That is incorrect. It was neither unprovoked nor an attack. The shove was not an attack. It was a shove in defense of his spouse. The shove was not unprovoked. It was provoked by the shooter verbally attacking his wife.


Remember, the witness ran into the store yelling that someone is messing with the woman in the car. The spouse would have no idea if his wife was merely being verbally abused or perhaps in the middle of a robbery. The spouse had more than enough information to push the shooter away from her.

Especially considering there were 2 babies in the car with her.

Everyone should note that the people doing damage control for the shooter in this thread consider 5 seconds to be not enough time for the shooter to think; but 5 seconds is also how much time the spouse had to think when running outside to protect her.

They were not married. Is this the type of fact free analysis we should continue to expect, because you just claimed that the shove wasn't an attack, he wasn't sent sprawling on the concrete several feet away from where he was standing (despite a video clearly and unmistakably showing those facts) and are now claiming that getting into an argument is sufficient provocation for the "push."

I gotta tell you, thanks for making my case for me!

Fantastic

 

[This is The End]

They were not married.

Sure, in a religious sense. Perhaps a legal sense as well, I'm not sure what the common law marriage rules are in Florida.

Also, it does not matter. It was his spouse in the family sense of the word.

Is this the type of fact free analysis we should continue to expect, because you just claimed that the shove wasn't an attack, he wasn't sent sprawling on the concrete several feet away from where he was standing (despite a video clearly and unmistakably showing those facts)

As already was explained, what did not happen was your description of the push, not the actual push.

and are now claiming that getting into an argument is sufficient provocation for the "push."

Very much so. His spouse was under attack. It could have been a mugging for all he knows. You expect for him to wait for more information before reacting, but you do not expect the shooter to wait for more information before reacting. The only difference is their race.

 

[The Big Dog]

Sure, in a religious sense. Perhaps a legal sense as well, I'm not sure what the common law marriage rules are in Florida.

Also, it does not matter. It was his spouse in the family sense of the word.





As already was explained, what did not happen was your description of the push, not the actual push.






Very much so. His spouse was under attack. It could have been a mugging for all he knows. You expect for him to wait for more information before reacting, but you do not expect the shooter to wait for more information before reacting. The only difference is their race.

She wasn't his spouse, but she was his spouse.
He pushed him, but he didn't "push' him.
I should expect the guy sprawled out on the concrete to 'wait for more information," but the deceased should not because his 'spouse' was 'under attack."

This gotta be a Poe, am I right?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Fifty years ago the machismo was 'them's fightin words' and now it's 'I was terrified for my life'. What the hell happened?