Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Stand Your Ground

And to add this, only one side can testify as to what each one of those involved was thinking , the thugs thoughs can only be testified to up to the point of is last actions. which was to actively attack a much smaller man who posed no threat to you, on the other hand you can ask the shooter what was going on in his mind after being savagely blindsided by a much larger blackman, knocked to the ground and scared off whats coming next.
Of course he was scared for his life, and should walk a free man.

It's going to fall on disparity of force, which ended when the gun came into play. Then to reasonable belief, which this old guy might loose also. The video show the man taking a step back, not really in retreat, still facing and capable of striking.

Regardless of the outcome-- he started the whole thing-- parking enforcement is not his job!

I think his stand your ground case is weak, because, the attacker is backing up when he shot--- just an opinion.

It will be interesting to see the outcome. The verdict might follow the Trayvon Martin shooting since that was in Florida too. I bet the BLM people will be riled up if this follows that one.

Go over to WorldStarHipHop and you can see how often that pulling up the drawers happens just before the punches start.

That he was backing up has nothing whatever to do with the Stand Your Ground component of Florida Self Defense law. It goes only to whether or not the defendant had a reasonable fear of imminent serious bodily harm.

Here's FLs "Stand Your Ground" law.

"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."

The reasonableness of the shooter's belief that he was in grave danger of death or great bodily harm will be key in this case. I think it's a tough case to make that he was reasonable in his belief that he was in grave danger when the person that pushed him down was walking away. I don't think it's reasonable. But this is Florida and the pool of jurors contains Florida Men, so anything can happen.

If it wasnt on video
It wouldnt be an issue.
Dead dudes cant testify

Dude shot a guy walking away.
That's not stand your ground.
That is someone walking away after a act was commited

Shoulda just called the police
Simple assualt charge coulda been pressed
If the cops could have responded in a timely manner.

Chances are he is gonna get charged with manslaughter or 2nd degree murder.
He will be lucky with a manslaughter charge.


JMO.

Apparently, based on comments here, a misunderstanding of Florida's Stand Your Ground law is universal and irreversible.

If someone is backing away-- they are no longer a threat--

Well ya gotta take factors into this also
Dude confronted someone about a handicap parking spot.
Dude was armed and feeling the barney fife mentality looking to be a big shot cause he was armed
Dude got pushed down
Dude killed a guy .


The jury will weigh all this I'm sure hearing the defense and prosecution side.


Like I said
If it wasn't on video.
It would be a check the block trial and dude would walk.
Dead people cant testify.
But video evidence and the circumstances leading up to this can affect what the jury perceives
JMO....



IMO
The groid got what he deserved and in the long run ain't costing the tax payers anymore money by seeding baby momma,s on welfare as a way of life.
Sucks for dude it was caught on video.

You gotta make sure you do a righteous shoot out in the public per levels of force escalation.
Big brother is watching electronically.

This probably shoulda just been a simple assualt charge against the griod in a "perfect world".

Maybe or maybe not. If they are backing up while making a furtive motion, such as reaching into one's pants, that's a justified shoot. If they are backing up in the direction of a baseball bat sitting on the driver's seat, that is a justified shoot. I don't see any of that here, so it looks on its face like it's not a good shoot, but a jury will decide that.

Step back to send a big kick forward, or stepping back to retreat after an attack?

Appears to me that he was going to attack more then maybe saw the gun and stepped back.
The outcome will probably depend on who is the better attorney.

Just to clarify, only in a minority of states (12), anymore, do the self-defense laws require you to attempt retreat while not in your home, if immediately and safely possible. So, whether they call it that or not, most states in the US today are now Stand Your Ground states.

PS In a handful of those 12 states, you have to attempt retreat, where safely possible, even from your own home.

So, in other words, in 38 states, you may stand your ground (i.e., you have no duty to explain why you didn't retreat) and still assert the right of self-defense. Florida is not particularly unique in this regard. At least not any longer.

Avoiding conflict is an art that few recognize, until it is too late. There are lots of tough guys in prison.


mike r

is any one sure this black thug might still turn back around ? blackman had no business parking in a handicap zone the small whiteman is innocent ,he was protecting himself from a thug !

One of the unwritten rules of CCW is you do your best to avoid confrontation, my guess is if he had not been armed he wouldn't have had the balls to initiate the conflict. I think he was looking for an excuse to to use that gun. In a previous incident he allegedly threatened to shoot another person over the same parking spot. If he had such a problem with it he should have called the authorities instead of taking the law into his own hands.

Round here, a move into the pocket like that means he's carryin, and the gat is comin out.

But ta keep it simple:

If it was a cop it happened to, would the cop be convicted (or even charged)?

Not guilty.

Not exactly.

He was not the initial instigator against the man he shot.

He was having an altercation with another person in a parked car. The dead man instigated the encounter between himself and the shooter by walking several feet an injection himself into the situation.

The shooter did not walk up to the dead man, did not speak to the dead man and did not even know the dead man was approaching.

The dean man instigated the deadly altercation.

I hadn't thought of it that way. That's an excellent point.