Stand Ur Gound

[dewilson58]

Bad parking, words, assault, shooting, death.

Things escalated quickly.

[Taltarzac725]

Bad parking, words, assault, shooting, death.

Thinks escalated quickly.

I saw that on the news. Took place in Clearwater. Guy pushed a man down who was carrying a concealed weapon. Argument over a parking spot and the girlfriend's parking job or something like that.

Just do not get the result that this shooting was justified. Seems like a ridiculous slippery slope.

[graciegirl]

I saw that on the news. Took place in Clearwater. Guy pushed a man down who was carrying a concealed weapon. Argument over a parking spot and the girlfriend's parking job or something like that.

Just do not get the result that this shooting was justified. Seems like a ridiculous slippery slope.

Someone called someone out for parking in a handicapped spot who wasn't handicapped. Boyfriend defended girlfriend verbally who was sitting in the car in the handicapped space and then boyfriend pushed the other guy down, the pushed down guy fired on him.

Not good, any way you slice it. The not handicapped man/woman shouldn't have parked in the handicapped space. The man should NOT have called them out on it, the boyfriend should not have laid his hands on the guy even if he was ****ed, and the man shouldn't have killed him. Most of us would NOT have had this happen because, except for on this forum, we usually mind our own business, like our PARENTS AND GRANDPARENTS taught us, and common sense urges us to do.


Please someone help me down from here.

[retiredguy123]

If the man who was pushed down was over 65, I think the law may consider the shooting justified. Florida has strict laws about when someone can shoot another person, but when the person being threatened is elderly, it is easier to justify that his life was in danger.

[Taltarzac725]

Someone called someone out for parking in a handicapped spot who wasn't handicapped. Boyfriend defended girlfriend who was sitting in the car in the handicapped space verbally and then pushed the other guy down, the pushed down guy fired on him.

Not good, any way you slice it. The not handicapped man/woman shouldn't have parked in the handicapped space. The man should NOT have called them out on it, the boyfriend should not have laid his hands on the guy even if he was ****ed, and the man shouldn't have killed him. Most of us would NOT have had this happen because, except for on this forum, we usually mind our own business, like our PARENTS AND GRANDPARENTS taught us, and common sense urges us to do.


Please someone help me down from here.

Just do not get why it is OK to pull a gun in a shoving match. There are circumstances when I could see it being OK if the person shoved is in very bad health and could die from being pushed over, but that does not seem to be the case.

Facts should matter a great deal in these cases.

[graciegirl]

Just do not get why it is OK to pull a gun in a shoving match. There are circumstances when I could see it being OK if the person shoved is in very bad health and could die from being pushed over, but that does not seem to be the case.

Facts should matter a great deal in these cases.

We don't know Counselor, but apparently it may be the law here. Laws are not always logical or in everyone's best interest.

Minding your own business unless it is a clear case of helping someone who is in danger or hurt is the best policy and often practiced by OLD people and smart new ones.

Florida Shooter Protected By Stand Your Ground Law (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/florida-shooter-protected-by-stand-your-ground-law/ar-BBKTeYi?ocid=spartandhp)

We must always ask ourselves; Do we want to have the last word or do we want our nose smacked in???(I say as I sit here protected in my kitchen)

[B-flat]

Live and Let Live!

[Taltarzac725]

Gunman in parking space shooting not charged because of 'Stand Your Ground' law - ABC News (https://abcnews.go.com/US/gunman-parking-space-shooting-charged-stand-ground-law/story?id=56715356)

Facts should matter with the law. Context is extremely important.

If you have not seen the video of this, there is one above. Granted this is slanted a bit in coverage.

[graciegirl]

I also say, laws be damned, if ANY creature ever threatened the life of my heirs and assigns, I could tear them apart and set them on fire.

Oxytocin. Amazing ****.

[C4Boston]

Bottom line, mind your own damn business.

[manaboutown]

Tough call on this one. That was an uncalled for rough shove to the ground. If the pushed down man felt further physically threatened I can understand why he shot the man who battered him.

[Taltarzac725]

Someone tried to carjack me in rural Eastern Nevada just off of Highway 50 in a rest stop at 3:00 AM in June of 1984. He had threatened to slam the door on my legs when I was moving things around to sleep. I managed to get my legs back in the car and thought seriously of running the man over but instead backed it up and got out of there. Had to pull over to get some sleep soon after that.

I regret that I did not report this to the police. I was so tired that I did not think I could have given them an accurate account of what happened.

The place I had wanted to stop for the night had lost power to its hotels and gas pumps. Did manage to find gas further on but was coasting on fumes. Thankfully the gas station was at the other side of a steep hill from the powerless town. But a good distance between gas stations.

I still wonder what would have happened if I had run that guy over? He was not armed that I could see. Just threatened to slam the door on my legs if I did not get out of the car.

[graciegirl]

Tough call on this one. That was an uncalled for rough shove to the ground. If the pushed down man felt further physically threatened I can understand why he shot the man who battered him.

Testosterone. I don't have that.

[rivaridger1]

What is the next physical act following the shove to the ground ? A kick in the head ?? There have been a number of incidents over the years where the person shoved struck their heads and died. I must admit if I were shoved in the manner depicted in the video, fear for my life would enter the equation. I think the authorities made the right call in not charging the shooter but also understand that decision is subject to review. The answer is easy, keep your hands off of others even when angry.

[retiredguy123]

It looks like self defense to me.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

What is the next physical act following the shove to the ground ? A kick in the head ?? There have been a number of incidents over the years where the person shoved struck their heads and died. I must admit if I were shoved in the manner depicted in the video, fear for my life would enter the equation. I think the authorities made the right call in not charging the shooter but also understand that decision is subject to review. The answer is easy, keep your hands off of others even when angry.

1. The "pusher" backed up, physically, away from "ground guy" after shoving the guy.
2. Assuming the "ground guy" felt threatened (which would be understandable) there is still no reason to KILL the pusher. Ground guy was on the ground. Ground guy could've shot the pusher in the foot. Or leg. Or arm. Or hip, or shoulder. It was a big looking pusher, and they were close range. Not much chance to miss. Ground guy chose a death shot. Ground guy committed murder, not self-defense. Cops chose not to allow charges to be pressed.

[Bogie Shooter]

Bottom line, mind your own damn business.
Who in this case?

[billethkid]

As a card carrying proponent of concealed carry, the shooter did not abide for the very specific rules and guidelines regarding when to pull one's weapon....there is no distinction between pulling a concealed weapon and firing the concealed weapon....as one would only pull their weapon to fire it.....not negotiate.

But before getting to that point there were two other aspects also ignored.....flee....hide from a shooting scenario.

Also there was no immediate threat to anybody's life or others nearby. We may not like the idea of a shoving match and an elder being knocked down.....none of which come anywhere close to justifying pulling a weapon and shooting.

Too many people are uninformed regarding the rules of engagement when authorized to carry a concealed weapon. It is not the wild west version of carrying a weapon.....though some few would have us think that.
The first line of defense is to, if at all possible, avoid a situation requiring the need to draw a weapon.

A good lawyer will no doubt create a doubt in a jury's mind about the justification of the shooting.

Those permitted to carry know better!!!!

[BobnBev]

As a card carrying proponent of concealed carry, the shooter did not abide for the very specific rules and guidelines regarding when to pull one's weapon....there is no distinction between pulling a concealed weapon and firing the concealed weapon....as one would only pull their weapon to fire it.....not negotiate.

But before getting to that point there were two other aspects also ignored.....flee....hide from a shooting scenario.

Also there was no immediate threat to anybody's life or others nearby. We may not like the idea of a shoving match and an elder being knocked down.....none of which come anywhere close to justifying pulling a weapon and shooting.

Too many people are uninformed regarding the rules of engagement when authorized to carry a concealed weapon. It is not the wild west version of carrying a weapon.....though some few would have us think that.
The first line of defense is to, if at all possible, avoid a situation requiring the need to draw a weapon.

A good lawyer will no doubt create a doubt in a jury's mind about the justification of the shooting.

Those permitted to carry know better!!!!

Well, if he's not being charged, then there will be no jury. All he had to say was he feared for his life. It's his word---shooting justified under SYG law.

[Taltarzac725]

Well, if he's not being charged, then there will be no jury. All he had to say was he feared for his life. It's his word---shooting justified under SYG law.

Is is up to the prosecutor if charges will be filed against this shooter.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Words are words but once someone puts their hands on another person, especially and older person, all bets are off.

If I got pushed to the ground by a young muscular guy, I'd be afraid for my life or at least my personal safety.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

1. The "pusher" backed up, physically, away from "ground guy" after shoving the guy.
2. Assuming the "ground guy" felt threatened (which would be understandable) there is still no reason to KILL the pusher. Ground guy was on the ground. Ground guy could've shot the pusher in the foot. Or leg. Or arm. Or hip, or shoulder. It was a big looking pusher, and they were close range. Not much chance to miss. Ground guy chose a death shot. Ground guy committed murder, not self-defense. Cops chose not to allow charges to be pressed.

This sounds like someone who knows very little about using a handgun for self defense. It is not like Person of Interest where they shoot people in the knee so they don't kill them. If you have to use a handgun for self defense you aim at the middle of the torso so you minimize the chance of missing. Handguns are very inaccurate. Even at close range missing the target is likely. In a life or death situation you usually don't have time to aim. It's point and shoot and hope you hit the target and stop the threat.

[Inexes@aol.com]

Information as it appeared in the Tampa Times....
The confrontation between Michael Drejka, 47, and Markeis McGlockton, 28, took place in a convenience store parking lot Thursday afternoon. According to deputies, Drejka confronted McGlockton’s girlfriend, Britany Jacobs, about parking in a handicap space without a permit.

McGlockton went up to Drejka and "slammed him to the ground," the sheriff said. Drejka, seconds later while still on the ground, pulled out his handgun and shot McGlockton in the chest. The father of three was pronounced dead soon after.

They stopped at the Circle A Food Store at 1201 Sunset Point Road on the way home from picking Jacobs up from her job as a certified nursing assistant to grab chips and drinks. Jacobs parked in the handicap spot, she said, because the parking lot was busy and they were just stopping for a minute.

Drejka went up to her.

"He’s getting out like he’s a police officer or something, and he’s approaching me," she said. "I minded my own business … I didn’t do anything wrong."

Records show Drejka does not have a criminal history in Florida, although the Sheriff’s Office had prior contact with him in 2012 when a driver accused him of pulling a gun during a road rage incident. Drejka denied he showed the gun, and the accuser declined to press charges.

Mustafa Hashen, a clerk and witness, said both men were regulars.

It wasn’t the first time he saw Drejka in a fight with another customer. A couple of months back, Rick Kelly stopped by the store, parking his tanker truck in the same handicap spot.

The details to Thursday’s incident are similar: Drejka walking around the truck checking for decals, then confronting Kelly, 31, about why he parked there. The fight escalated, and Drejka threatened to shoot him, Kelly said.

"It’s a repeat. It happened to me the first time. The second time it’s happening, someone’s life got taken," Kelly said. "He provoked that."

[rivaridger1]

1. The "pusher" backed up, physically, away from "ground guy" after shoving the guy.
2. Assuming the "ground guy" felt threatened (which would be understandable) there is still no reason to KILL the pusher. Ground guy was on the ground. Ground guy could've shot the pusher in the foot. Or leg. Or arm. Or hip, or shoulder. It was a big looking pusher, and they were close range. Not much chance to miss. Ground guy chose a death shot. Ground guy committed murder, not self-defense. Cops chose not to allow charges to be pressed.

You do not shoot to wound ( no one is that good in a life and death situation to do that ). The shot is center body mass and is intended to kill. When you make a decision to fire, you have made the decision to end a life unfortunately and must live with the aftermath.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Information as it appeared in the Tampa Times....
The confrontation between Michael Drejka, 47, and Markeis McGlockton, 28, took place in a convenience store parking lot Thursday afternoon. According to deputies, Drejka confronted McGlockton’s girlfriend, Britany Jacobs, about parking in a handicap space without a permit.

McGlockton went up to Drejka and "slammed him to the ground," the sheriff said. Drejka, seconds later while still on the ground, pulled out his handgun and shot McGlockton in the chest. The father of three was pronounced dead soon after.

They stopped at the Circle A Food Store at 1201 Sunset Point Road on the way home from picking Jacobs up from her job as a certified nursing assistant to grab chips and drinks. Jacobs parked in the handicap spot, she said, because the parking lot was busy and they were just stopping for a minute.

Drejka went up to her.

"He’s getting out like he’s a police officer or something, and he’s approaching me," she said. "I minded my own business … I didn’t do anything wrong."

Records show Drejka does not have a criminal history in Florida, although the Sheriff’s Office had prior contact with him in 2012 when a driver accused him of pulling a gun during a road rage incident. Drejka denied he showed the gun, and the accuser declined to press charges.

Mustafa Hashen, a clerk and witness, said both men were regulars.

It wasn’t the first time he saw Drejka in a fight with another customer. A couple of months back, Rick Kelly stopped by the store, parking his tanker truck in the same handicap spot.

The details to Thursday’s incident are similar: Drejka walking around the truck checking for decals, then confronting Kelly, 31, about why he parked there. The fight escalated, and Drejka threatened to shoot him, Kelly said.

"It’s a repeat. It happened to me the first time. The second time it’s happening, someone’s life got taken," Kelly said. "He provoked that."

Sounds like a person looking for trouble and an excuse to shoot someone. This is different from the story as I first understood it.

But I still say once you put your hands on someone you run the risk of whatever happens.

In this case, both parties were wrong. If Drejka wants to confront people about parking in a handicap spot that his right. But if he's looking to shoot someone, which would be hard to prove, that's a problem. The fact that he has threatened to shoot people in the past is very problematic.

On the other hand, once McGlockton pushed him to the ground he was in the wrong as well. Like I said, words are words but once it becomes physical, everything changes.

[retiredguy123]

The pusher committed a violent crime and paid the consequences. Self defense. I hope the case is closed, and politics does not play a role. The sheriff made the correct decision by not making an arrest.

[Chi-Town]

As a card carrying proponent of concealed carry, the shooter did not abide for the very specific rules and guidelines regarding when to pull one's weapon....there is no distinction between pulling a concealed weapon and firing the concealed weapon....as one would only pull their weapon to fire it.....not negotiate.

But before getting to that point there were two other aspects also ignored.....flee....hide from a shooting scenario.

Also there was no immediate threat to anybody's life or others nearby. We may not like the idea of a shoving match and an elder being knocked down.....none of which come anywhere close to justifying pulling a weapon and shooting.

Too many people are uninformed regarding the rules of engagement when authorized to carry a concealed weapon. It is not the wild west version of carrying a weapon.....though some few would have us think that.
The first line of defense is to, if at all possible, avoid a situation requiring the need to draw a weapon.

A good lawyer will no doubt create a doubt in a jury's mind about the justification of the shooting.

Those permitted to carry know better!!!!Nice job of stating the rule of engagement.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk

[tagjr1]

1. The "pusher" backed up, physically, away from "ground guy" after shoving the guy.
2. Assuming the "ground guy" felt threatened (which would be understandable) there is still no reason to KILL the pusher. Ground guy was on the ground. Ground guy could've shot the pusher in the foot. Or leg. Or arm. Or hip, or shoulder. It was a big looking pusher, and they were close range. Not much chance to miss. Ground guy chose a death shot. Ground guy committed murder, not self-defense. Cops chose not to allow charges to be pressed.

Cops did the right thing, turned it over to the DA! Let them review the tape and eyewitness accounts and then charge accordingly.

[Taltarzac725]

Cops did the right thing, turned it over to the DA! Let them review the tape and eyewitness accounts and then charge accordingly.

Looking more and more like someone who wants to play vigilante and should never have been given a concealed gun permit with that kind of mindset.

[graciegirl]

I am glad we have the second amendment. I am glad we don't have guns. If we ever need them we can get educated on how to use them and get some.

[retiredguy123]

Looking more and more like someone who wants to play vigilante and should never have been given a concealed gun permit with that kind of mindset.
He was just exercising his freedom of speech and was the victim of a violent crime. If he didn't have a gun, he may be the dead one. Watch the video.

[Marathon Man]

OK. Let me respond to a couple of things that have been said. The shooter was 47 (not elderly), and has been known to approach people like this in the past. The pusher is clearly seen taking steps toward the shooter after he was on the ground (continued threat), backing up only after he saw the gun.

I gotta say, I am not a fan of either of these guys.

Not a fan of the woman driving either. There were other parking spots available.

[Kerry Azz]

Bottom line, mind your own damn business.

A true Bostonian would NEVER say that!

[Trayderjoe]

The Stand Your Ground Law removes the requirement to try and escape from an attacker, if you have a right to be where you are at the time of the attack. The prosecutor does have the ability to charge someone with murder, regardless of Stand Your Ground, if the shooter fails to demonstrate that they met the requirements for self defense. Does anyone remember the original George Zimmerman case? The prosecutor charged him with murder, however he was found innocent at trial. (Note: the decision included a myriad of factors such as disparity of force)

Apparently the police, after completing an investigation, did not arrest the shooter in this case. Has the prosecutor decided not to file charges (I may have missed that)? The prosecutor determines if a case will be charged based upon the information collected by the police. Should there be a determination not to charge, and the case closed, under Florida law, the shooter would also be shielded from lawsuits by the deceased's family.

I watched the video, did not hear any audio, and I don't know what any witnesses reported in terms of a dialogue. Was the deceased threatening to kill the person on the ground? The deceased was standing close enough to the shooter that if he was threatening further violence, the shooter may have reasonably felt he was in mortal danger, since he was already attacked with the initial push. There was a study called the Tueller Drill which showed that a person with a knife could travel 21 feet in only 1.5 seconds and tap a target with the knife to simulate an attack. The deceased appeared to be much closer to the shooter at the time of the shooting, so don't let the distance between the two sway you when you watch the video.

Having a concealed carry permit is not a license to kill. A gun should only be drawn for the purposes of defending your life or the lives of your family. As another poster indicated, you don't pull a gun and try to shoot someone in the leg, arm or foot to disable them. When you pull a weapon it is because your life is in danger and you shoot for the middle of the torso (center mass). A person who does carry has an obligation to understand the law, and the ramifications they face. Merely displaying a gun during an altercation is a felony, unless you can demonstrate that you were in fear for your life. In order to claim self defense in a fatal shooting incident, you are admitting that you killed someone. You then have to show that you met all of the elements of self defense in order to either not be charged, or to have your case adjudicated in your favor. A person carrying a concealed weapon, without getting much more training, is in my opinion, foolish and a potential future inmate of a correctional facility.

[Trayderjoe]

OK. Let me respond to a couple of things that have been said. The shooter was 47 (not elderly), and has been known to approach people like this in the past. The pusher is clearly seen taking steps toward the shooter after he was on the ground (continued threat), backing up only after he saw the gun.

I gotta say, I am not a fan of either of these guys.

Not a fan of the woman driving either. There were other parking spots available.

Agreed!

[kcrazorbackfan]

1. The "pusher" backed up, physically, away from "ground guy" after shoving the guy.
2. Assuming the "ground guy" felt threatened (which would be understandable) there is still no reason to KILL the pusher. Ground guy was on the ground. Ground guy could've shot the pusher in the foot. Or leg. Or arm. Or hip, or shoulder. It was a big looking pusher, and they were close range. Not much chance to miss. Ground guy chose a death shot. Ground guy committed murder, not self-defense. Cops chose not to allow charges to be pressed.


There was no audio to hear what was being said by the "pusher" while coming toward the person or after the act of aggression, when he turned away. He could have been telling the lady in the car that he going to stomp the guy or kick him in the head. The pusher became an extreme aggressor when he pushed the guy to the ground and if the guy on the ground became fearful for his life, with that act or what he heard, it became a legal shoot.

When you are fearing for your life, and that heart is really pumping, you more likely to hit an innocent bystander if you shoot for a foot, leg, arm, hip or shoulder; you shoot for center mass to stop the threat.

[retiredguy123]

According to the sheriff, who did a very detailed press conference, no words were spoken between the pusher and the shooter. The shooter fired the shot within 4 seconds of being pushed, and he said that he thought the pusher was going to attack him again, and he feared for his life. That is why the sheriff did not arrest the shooter.

[tomwed]

///////////////////

[ColdNoMore]

Based on the shooter's history, he's obviously been walking around looking for a fight, with the hope he could be a big man/hero one day...and use his gun.


He got away with murder...period.

[Taltarzac725]

Based on the shooter's history, he's obviously been walking around looking for a fight, with the hope he could be a big man/hero one day...and use his gun.


He got away with murder...period.

Not yet he has not. Still depends on what the prosecutor does. They should investigate some more before deciding. Interview the people involved and the like.

From the body language of the guy who died he did not look like he was getting ready to do any further damage to the guy on the ground.

[retiredguy123]

Based on the shooter's history, he's obviously been walking around looking for a fight, with the hope he could be a big man/hero one day...and use his gun.


He got away with murder...period.
This was not murder. He didn't make those people park illegally in a handicap space. He didn't make the pusher commit a violent crime by throwing him to the ground. All he did in this incident was to exercise his freedom of speech and defend himself from a violent attack. The dead man would be alive today if he had just obeyed the law and acted in a civilized and proper manner. Most good people would have never done what he did. He suffered the consequences for his antisocial and illegal behaviour.

[billethkid]

I would like to hear from a concealed weapons instructor or a personal self defense instructor what their assessment is based solely on FACTS available.

All the rest of us are merely presenting how we see it as affected by our demeanor/life style/belief/opinion/prejudice/et al.

Where is the emotional, special interests comments/rage regarding and unarmed person being shot and killed!!!!!

[Marathon Man]

This case will be debated for a long time, much like the Zimmerman case. Opinions will certainly vary. Here is how I look at it. Three people who are willing to do what most of us are not willing to do came together at the same time in the same place. This is the result. If any of the three had acted differently, a shooting would not have occurred.

Who is to blame? Who is responsible? Who did something wrong? Who was more wrong than the other? Should the law be changed? Well, that will be the debate.

[zmarkp]

I made up my mind as soon as I saw the video.

If charges are brought I will donate to the shooter's defense fund.

[TNLAKEPANDA]

If you carry a firearm you better know the laws and fully understand the consequences of shooting someone. If your life is threatened you have the right to protect yourself. Being pushed to the ground is a slippery slope.

[dewilson58]

Playing it again on ABC News this morning.

Must be a slow news day.

[billethkid]

Life taking decisions are so simple as we sit in front of our desk tops!!
No involvement....no participation....no personal investment....in deciding when or whether it is OK to take a human life.

[billethkid]

Watch the video....again....

Victim's girlfriend says Florida gunman provoked fatal 'stand your ground' shooting - ABC News (https://abcnews.go.com/US/victims-girlfriend-florida-gunman-provoked-fatal-stand-ground/story?id=56751894)

Listen to all the info available.

[Taltarzac725]

Watch the video....again....

Victim's girlfriend says Florida gunman provoked fatal 'stand your ground' shooting - ABC News (https://abcnews.go.com/US/victims-girlfriend-florida-gunman-provoked-fatal-stand-ground/story?id=56751894)

Listen to all the info available.

I agree with you. You should never use a gun unless you realize fully the profound changes in the lives of the family of this person you are aiming a lethal weapon at.

This man was itching to use his weapon just for the sake of using it.

He murdered someone. Whether that was justified should depend on a jury of his peers .

[HogPilot]

When the indignant entitled passenger was confronted, she said they were allowed to park anywhere they wanted to... Didn't matter that the space was designated for Handicapped.

[billethkid]

When the indignant entitled passenger was confronted, she said they were allowed to park anywhere they wanted to... Didn't matter that the space was designated for Handicapped.

Sounds very much like many villages residents act/behave!!
No impact on the decision to shoot an unarmed man!

[Dmbluk]

Bottom Line is. If he had obeyed the law and not parked in the handicapped spot would we be having this conversation. This is just one mans opinion!

[Inexes@aol.com]

When the indignant entitled passenger was confronted, she said they were allowed to park anywhere they wanted to... Didn't matter that the space was designated for Handicapped.
Funny that is not how it was reported in the Tampa paper when it happened..... quote was that "the lot was full and they were only going to be there a couple of minutes". How does this stuff get so blown out of proportion.......

[ColdNoMore]

Bottom Line is. If he had obeyed the law and not parked in the handicapped spot would we be having this conversation. This is just one mans opinion!

Fer cripes sake...seriously? :oops:


Illegal handicap parking, is now fair game for gun carrying 'hero wannabe's'...to kill someone? :ohdear:

[Henryk]

This is a absurdly STUPID law. Period. Can you spell Zimmerman?

[ColdNoMore]

This is a absurdly STUPID law. Period. Can you spell Zimmerman?


:BigApplause:...:BigApplause:...:BigApplause:

[dewilson58]

Didn't realize how many States.

[Dmbluk]

Fer cripes sake...seriously? :oops:


Illegal handicap parking, is now fair game for gun carrying 'hero wannabe's'...to kill someone? :ohdear:

Excuse me? I didn't say it was fair game all I said was if the man had obeyed the sign we wouldn"t be having this conversation

[manaboutown]

From what I have read so far, the girlfriend driver parked in a handicap spot although other spaces were open. She lied stating the lot was otherwise full which it was not as shown by surveillance video. Then she laughably said she did not do anything wrong when of course she had. The elderly gentleman was apparently admonishing her for her wrongdoing perhaps asking her to move her car to one of the open parking spaces so the spot could be used by a handicapped person when her boyfriend came at the man and blindsidedly violently shoved him to the ground without warning. If I were that man I might have felt sufficiently threatened to shoot the physically threatening thug who had already suddenly violently attacked me in self defense myself.

BTW I wonder if the violent shover had a criminal history.

[dewilson58]

I have never seen escalation end well.

[ColdNoMore]

47 year old white man = "elderly gentleman."

Young black male = "thug."


THAT...says it all. :oops:


Is there really anyone who is still confused on why...NFL players are taking a knee? :ohdear:

[ColdNoMore]

From what I have read so far, the girlfriend driver parked in a handicap spot although other spaces were open. She lied stating the lot was otherwise full which it was not as shown by surveillance video. Then she laughably said she did not do anything wrong when of course she had. The elderly gentleman was apparently admonishing her for her wrongdoing perhaps asking her to move her car to one of the open parking spaces so the spot could be used by a handicapped person when her boyfriend came at the shooter and blindsidedly violently shoved him to the ground without warning. If I were that man I might have felt sufficiently threatened to shoot the physically threatening thug who had already suddenly violently attacked me in self defense myself.

BTW I wonder if the violent shover had a criminal history.

I believe you when you say that... "I might have felt sufficiently threatened to shoot..."

[dewilson58]

A quick search................

Records show Drejka does not have a criminal history in Florida. McGlockton’s history included a drug conviction in 2010 and an arrest for aggravated battery a decade ago, records show, but the charge was dropped.

[manaboutown]

47 year old white man = "elderly gentleman."

Young black male = "thug."


THAT...says it all. :oops:


Is there really anyone who is still confused on why...NFL players are taking a knee? :ohdear:

The shover established his thugness with his behavior, the unexpected sudden violent push to the ground, not his skin color.

As for The National Felon League? Look at the extensive criminal histories of so many of the players.

So the shooter was only 47, 19 years older than his 28 year old attacker but not elderly. He was of smaller stature and slighter build and suddenly violently pushed to the ground unexpectedly. McGlockton could have come up, verbally addressed the man to move along and if the man did not move perhaps taken the man by his elbow and ushered him away. But he obviously did not. He suddenly and unexpectedly violently physically attacked him.

Very sad for his three illegitimate children with his lying girlfriend.

[Spikearoni]

Tough call on this one. That was an uncalled for rough shove to the ground. If the pushed down man felt further physically threatened I can understand why he shot the man who battered him.

I really can't understand how this murder can be justified. Since the killer had a gun and and felt threatened as you state, why didn't he just pull out the gun and tell the guy to take off? It's very sad to read that the victim was a young father of three. Yes, he should have just gotten in his car and left the scene instead of engaging in a shove-match with the 40 something year-old shooter. However, he did not deserve to die for that imo. That stand your ground law has got to go!

[Taltarzac725]

I really can't understand how this murder can be justified. Since the killer had a gun and and felt threatened as you state, why didn't he just pull out the gun and tell the guy to take off? It's very sad to read that the victim was a young father of three. Yes, he should have just gotten in his car and left the scene instead of engaging in a shove-match with the 40 something year-old shooter. However, he did not deserve to die for that imo. That stand your ground law has got to go!

It is just the stupid application of it is this case. Look at some of the responses from people who actually have concealed weapon permits on here.

Maybe, the prosecutor will do the right thing and charge this shooter. That does not look like self defense to me.

[graciegirl]

It is just the stupid application of it is this case. Look at some of the responses from people who actually have concealed weapon permits on here.

Maybe, the prosecutor will do the right thing and charge this shooter. That does not look like self defense to me.

I imagine that is what the prosecutor will do.

It would not have happened if everyone behaved well and minded their own business. We are not in charge of running the world, none of us, even if the girl was annoyingly selfish when she parked in handicap.

Now someone is dead. I believe in the validity of the second amendment and don't want it messed up if ever times change here and I may think we should have a gun at our house.

The nasty attitude of some of the posters on this thread make me want to find a billy club and bop a few people. My grandmother said to never have a gun at your home, because the best and kindest people in this world have a point that they could kill someone who does not deserve to be killed.

[manaboutown]

I really can't understand how this murder can be justified. Since the killer had a gun and and felt threatened as you state, why didn't he just pull out the gun and tell the guy to take off? It's very sad to read that the victim was a young father of three. Yes, he should have just gotten in his car and left the scene instead of engaging in a shove-match with the 40 something year-old shooter. However, he did not deserve to die for that imo. That stand your ground law has got to go!

Self-defense (United States - Wikipedia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(United_States))

[ColdNoMore]

Not like it's a newsflash by any means, but anger/hatred/prejudice/racism/bigotry...are still alive and thriving. :ohdear:

Hopefully, if most studies can be believed, the younger generation will alleviate a lot of this...when older generations start dying off.

[graciegirl]

Not like it's a newsflash by any means, but anger/hatred/prejudice/racism/bigotry...are still alive and thriving. :ohdear:

Hopefully, if most studies can be believed, the younger generation will alleviate a lot of this...when older generations start dying off.

Prejudice against age is bigotry. Prejudging ANY group of people is short sighted. The kind of hate we dispense usually comes back to us. We all get old and most of us gain wisdom during the trip. Most of us.

[ColdNoMore]

:1rotfl:


The data are in: Young people are definitely less racist than old people — Quartz (https://qz.com/983016/the-data-are-in-young-people-are-definitely-less-racist-than-old-people/)


Facts matter. :wave:

[Henryk]

A quick search................

Records show Drejka does not have a criminal history in Florida. McGlockton’s history included a drug conviction in 2010 and an arrest for aggravated battery a decade ago, records show, but the charge was dropped.
That may be true, but Drejka has a history of starting trouble when he can’t spot HCP plates. I hope he’s charged.

[CFrance]

Someone called someone out for parking in a handicapped spot who wasn't handicapped. Boyfriend defended girlfriend verbally who was sitting in the car in the handicapped space and then boyfriend pushed the other guy down, the pushed down guy fired on him.

Not good, any way you slice it. The not handicapped man/woman shouldn't have parked in the handicapped space. The man should NOT have called them out on it, the boyfriend should not have laid his hands on the guy even if he was ****ed, and the man shouldn't have killed him. Most of us would NOT have had this happen because, except for on this forum, we usually mind our own business, like our PARENTS AND GRANDPARENTS taught us, and common sense urges us to do.


Please someone help me down from here.
I think also another reason is that most of us would walk away from a confrontation. You never know how the other person is going to respond, what his or her rage level is, whether or not he's carrying a weapon.


Just walk away. Console yourself with the fact that karma will get him.


But then, most of us... don't park in a handicapped spot if we don't have the legal means to do so. It was bad, but not worth dying for.

[graciegirl]

I think also another reason is that most of us would walk away from a confrontation. You never know how the other person is going to respond, what his or her rage level is, whether or not he's carrying a weapon.


Just walk away. Console yourself with the fact that karma will get him.


But then, most of us... don't park in a handicapped spot if we don't have the legal means to do so. It was bad, but not worth dying for.

Exactly.

[ColdNoMore]

That may be true, but Drejka has a history of starting trouble when he can’t spot HCP plates. I hope he’s charged.

Yep.



I hope he’s charged.

If he isn't charged, I believe it will just embolden...more vigilantism and 'hero wannabe's.' :ohdear:

[Stdole]

Many of you posting has forgot who is the VICTIM is in this case. It is not the dead man it is the man who stopped the threat on his life. That is what the law is telling you here and part of the reason he was not and will not be charged. If a person breaks into your home and you kill them to save your life, the dead man would be called the culprit . Don't make this case complicated... The man on the ground felt his life was in danger... The law does not state your accused has to be armed with a gun or a hammer or a rock etc... I wil make an educated guess that posters here that are opposed to concealed carry or 2nd Amend. Will have the
Victim as wrong. Just remember in these crimes who is/was the VICTIM.

[gmnirr]

thats why a lot of these people get away with doing whatever they want, whenever they want.

[gmnirr]

a person is talking really loud on a phone on a bus, you ask him/her to tone it down he/she gets in your face and says he/she is gonna kick your ass...

[manaboutown]

Many of you posting has forgot who is the VICTIM is in this case. It is not the dead man it is the man who stopped the threat on his life. That is what the law is telling you here and part of the reason he was not and will not be charged. If a person breaks into your home and you kill them to save your life, the dead man would be called the culprit . Don't make this case complicated... The man on the ground felt his life was in danger... The law does not state your accused has to be armed with a gun or a hammer or a rock etc... I wil make an educated guess that posters here that are opposed to concealed carry or 2nd Amend. Will have the
Victim as wrong. Just remember in these crimes who is/was the VICTIM.

:BigApplause:

[CFrance]

Words are words but once someone puts their hands on another person, especially and older person, all bets are off.

If I got pushed to the ground by a young muscular guy, I'd be afraid for my life or at least my personal safety.
The guy is 47, I believe.

[Trayderjoe]

I really can't understand how this murder can be justified. Since the killer had a gun and and felt threatened as you state, why didn't he just pull out the gun and tell the guy to take off? It's very sad to read that the victim was a young father of three. Yes, he should have just gotten in his car and left the scene instead of engaging in a shove-match with the 40 something year-old shooter. However, he did not deserve to die for that imo. That stand your ground law has got to go!

Stand Your Ground is NOT a self defense law. SYG removes the requirement from a person who is being victimized, to try and escape before defending themselves. Consider that without SYG, if a criminal entered your home, you would have an obligation to try and escape out of your own home, if it was safe to do so, before defending yourself. This can be true in any state that does not have SYG.

So which law has to go, Stand Your Ground or your right to self defense?

[CFrance]

Many of you posting has forgot who is the VICTIM is in this case. It is not the dead man it is the man who stopped the threat on his life. That is what the law is telling you here and part of the reason he was not and will not be charged. If a person breaks into your home and you kill them to save your life, the dead man would be called the culprit . Don't make this case complicated... The man on the ground felt his life was in danger... The law does not state your accused has to be armed with a gun or a hammer or a rock etc... I wil make an educated guess that posters here that are opposed to concealed carry or 2nd Amend. Will have the
Victim as wrong. Just remember in these crimes who is/was the VICTIM.
I believe the first victim in all of this was the woman sitting in the car that the man accosted. I don't believe the "first aggressor" is the victim. So, was the guy who shoved him protecting his partner? Who was standing his ground first?


This guy will probably get away with murdering another person because he got knocked over.


Something's wrong with the law if this person is not charged. I agree with BTK.

[Trayderjoe]

Many of you posting has forgot who is the VICTIM is in this case. It is not the dead man it is the man who stopped the threat on his life. That is what the law is telling you here and part of the reason he was not and will not be charged. If a person breaks into your home and you kill them to save your life, the dead man would be called the culprit . Don't make this case complicated... The man on the ground felt his life was in danger... The law does not state your accused has to be armed with a gun or a hammer or a rock etc... I wil make an educated guess that posters here that are opposed to concealed carry or 2nd Amend. Will have the
Victim as wrong. Just remember in these crimes who is/was the VICTIM.

Well said. We don't know ALL of the facts, just what we are reading in the news (there is no audio with the video-if someone has a link to a video of the incident with audio, that would be interesting to review) and yet the victim is being demonized once again. Should the prosecutor determine that the shooting was not justified, then the victim of the original attack will be prosecuted.

[ColdNoMore]

I believe the first victim in all of this was the woman sitting in the car that the man accosted. I don't believe the "first aggressor" is the victim. So, was the guy who shoved him protecting his partner? Who was standing his ground first?

This guy will probably get away with murdering another person because he got knocked over.

Something's wrong with the law if this person is not charged. I agree with BTK.

That's an excellent point and...just made me think of something.

I wonder how those defending the instigator that was pushed down, would feel if the lady in the car...drew a gun and killed the dude looking for a fight (verbal)?

After all, HE was the one that initiated the confrontation, she was a much smaller female and if she felt threatened or that her life was in danger...would it have been OK for her to shoot him?

Why do I get the feeling that the ones now patting the hero-wannabe on the back...would have a whole different perspective in that scenario? :ohdear:

[manaboutown]

Stand Your Ground is NOT a self defense law. SYG removes the requirement from a person who is being victimized, to try and escape before defending themselves. Consider that without SYG, if a criminal entered your home, you would have an obligation to try and escape out of your own home, if it was safe to do so, before defending yourself. This can be true in any state that does not have SYG.

So which law has to go, Stand Your Ground or your right to self defense?

In all jurisdictions when an intruder enters one’s home one need not retreat. In fact in most jurisdictions one need not retreat under many circumstances. One is entitled to defend oneself.

Self-defense (United States - Wikipedia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(United_States))

[Trayderjoe]

I believe the first victim in all of this was the woman sitting in the car that the man accosted. I don't believe the "first aggressor" is the victim. So, was the guy who shoved him protecting his partner? Who was standing his ground first?


This guy will probably get away with murdering another person because he got knocked over.


Something's wrong with the law if this person is not charged. I agree with BTK.

I am sorry, but I have to disagree. Use of words does NOT justify a physical response. I am not saying that the person who was shoved is/was a saint, but once the boyfriend pushed him to the ground, the boyfriend became the aggressor. The victim was now on the ground with the assailant within close proximity to him, and I have not seen a transcript of the dialogue before/during/after the incident we don't know if the victim was being threatened with further harm by the assailant. Should the prosecutor determine that all elements of self defense are not present, the prosecutor will charge the shooter with murder.

Has our criminal justice system gone from innocent until proven guilty to the most social media votes determines guilt?

[Trayderjoe]

In most jurisdictions when an intruder enters one’s home one need not retreat. In fact in most jurisdictions one need not retreat under many circumstances. One is entitled to defend oneself.

Self-defense (United States - Wikipedia (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-defense_(United_States))

The keyword in your post is "most". The prosecutor can still charge someone if they don't retreat while it is safe to do so in those states that don't have SYG on the books. I am not saying that they will, but they have the opportunity, especially if it becomes politically expedient to do so. And yes, politics have come into play with arrests, sad to say.

Florida has one of the strongest Castle Doctrines in the US and many states have modeled after Florida, but may have also weakened it in one form or another in those states. This is why is is critical that someone who intends to carry a concealed weapon, or have a gun in their home must understand the laws of their state.

[manaboutown]

I believe the first victim in all of this was the woman sitting in the car that the man accosted. I don't believe the "first aggressor" is the victim. So, was the guy who shoved him protecting his partner? Who was standing his ground first?


This guy will probably get away with murdering another person because he got knocked over.


Something's wrong with the law if this person is not charged. I agree with BTK.

The woman was illegally parked in a spot reserved for handicapped people. She lied about there being no empty parking spots when surveillance video showed otherwise. Then she claimed she had done nothing wrong. Some victim!

This is the first person this man shot so where does “another person” come from?

BTW, the thug who violently shoved the man to the ground had a criminal record including aggravated assault. No surprise there judging by his behavior in the video.

[rivaridger1]

Again we are writing movie scripts. What is the appropriate course of action in dealing with a personal life and death situation ? I prefer to live. The 9/11 passengers in the plane over Pennsylvania chose to live, although they did not unfortunately. If your personal beliefs are such you value pacifism to the extent you are willing to give up your life to avoid taking another's, that is fine. Please do not however levy blame on those of us which elect an alternative action.

[Trayderjoe]

That's an excellent point and...just made me think of something.

I wonder how those defending the instigator that was pushed down, would feel if the lady in the car...drew a gun and killed the dude looking for a fight (verbal)?

After all, HE was the one that initiated the confrontation, she was a much smaller female and if she felt threatened or that her life was in danger...would it have been OK for her to shoot him?

Why do I get the feeling that the ones now patting the hero-wannabe on the back...would have a whole different perspective in that scenario? :ohdear:

A verbal attack in and of itself does not warrant a shooting self defense claim. In your scenario, the woman would be charged with murder, justifiably so in this limited example of her being verbally abused in the parking lot with her boyfriend standing nearby. "What ifs" are scenarios for training on the appropriate use of firearms for defending yourself, and understanding how the law applies in those scenarios, rather than to be used in an attempt to further demonize the original victim.

If the shooter was wrong, he will be prosecuted and if ALL OF THE FACTS that the police have accumulated and the prosecutor has reviewed indicate that the shooting was justified, then the case is closed.

[manaboutown]

The keyword in your post is "most". The prosecutor can still charge someone if they don't retreat while it is safe to do so in those states that don't have SYG on the books. I am not saying that they will, but they have the opportunity, especially if it becomes politically expedient to do so. And yes, politics have come into play with arrests, sad to say.

Florida has one of the strongest Castle Doctrines in the US and many states have modeled after Florida, but may have also weakened it in one form or another in those states. This is why is is critical that someone who intends to carry a concealed weapon, or have a gun in their home must understand the laws of their state.

Only a few states require retreat and even those allow one to defend himself if retreat is not safe or possible. The majority rule does not require retreat. No states require retreat within one’s home.

[Trayderjoe]

Again we are writing movie scripts. What is the appropriate course of action in dealing with a personal life and death situation ? I prefer to live. The 9/11 passengers in the plane over Pennsylvania chose to live, although they did not unfortunately. If your personal beliefs are such you value pacifism to the extent you are willing to give up your life to avoid taking another's, that is fine. Please do not however levy blame on those of us which elect an alternative action.

Agreed. Taking a life is very serious and should not be done lightly. Basically if it is not worth dying for, it should not be worth killing someone over it. As you indicated, if a person chooses to not protect themselves with a firearm, that is their absolute right to do so and I would defend their right. However, people also have the right to defend themselves and those rights also need to be defended.

[Trayderjoe]

Only a few states require retreat and even those allow one to defend himself if retreat is not safe or possible. The majority rule does not require retreat. No states require retreat within one’s home.

Given the complexity of the laws, it is safe to say most do, but you have to be careful as there are states with "Duty to Retreat" laws that could leave the door open for a prosecutor to charge someone who did not retreat when it was safe to do so. The states of which i am aware that have Duty to Retreat laws include: Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Rhode Island, Wisconsin and Wyoming. Keep in mind that the states that have adopted Castle Doctrine also don't all match 100% in how it was adopted.

A person would be foolish to shoot someone in what they claim is a self defense justified setting, and THEN begin reading about the law. The person in possession of a weapon has a duty to understand the laws and to follow them, if not, they can easily become wards of the state. I would certainly want to be VERY sure that I had no duty to retreat in my home, especially if I was in a Duty to Retreat state, no offense, before taking the word of either of us on this discussion board.

[BobnBev]

Again we are writing movie scripts. What is the appropriate course of action in dealing with a personal life and death situation ? I prefer to live. The 9/11 passengers in the plane over Pennsylvania chose to live, although they did not unfortunately. If your personal beliefs are such you value pacifism to the extent you are willing to give up your life to avoid taking another's, that is fine. Please do not however levy blame on those of us which elect an alternative action.

:bigbow::bigbow::BigApplause::BigApplause:

[B-flat]

My take if I were pushed like that and had a weapon I’d probably fire it too.

On the subject of “handicapped.” IGNORANCE IS A HANDICAP but that was no excuse for that woman to park where she did.

[Spikearoni]

Stand Your Ground is NOT a self defense law. SYG removes the requirement from a person who is being victimized, to try and escape before defending themselves. Consider that without SYG, if a criminal entered your home, you would have an obligation to try and escape out of your own home, if it was safe to do so, before defending yourself. This can be true in any state that does not have SYG.

So which law has to go, Stand Your Ground or your right to self defense?

Every person living in the United States has a legal right to self-defense with or without SYG.

[Spikearoni]

that's an excellent point and...just made me think of something.

I wonder how those defending the instigator that was pushed down, would feel if the lady in the car...drew a gun and killed the dude looking for a fight (verbal)?

After all, he was the one that initiated the confrontation, she was a much smaller female and if she felt threatened or that her life was in danger...would it have been ok for her to shoot him?

Why do i get the feeling that the ones now patting the hero-wannabe on the back...would have a whole different perspective in that scenario? :ohdear:

point well made!

[Trayderjoe]

Every person living in the United States has a legal right to self-defense with or without SYG.

You are correct, to a point. Generally speaking, you do NOT have a right to use lethal force in a Duty to Retreat state if you can safely escape from the perpetrator. I say generally because if those states have Castle Doctrine (not all states do), then you might not be required to escape if you are facing a perpetrator in your home.

The laws are not consistent across the states, so one would be wise to understand the laws in the state where they live. And if you travel with a firearm, you better understand the laws of the states you are passing through, as well as in your final destination. One also needs to understand any laws related to ammunition in those various jurisdictions.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

From what I have read so far, the girlfriend driver parked in a handicap spot although other spaces were open. She lied stating the lot was otherwise full which it was not as shown by surveillance video. Then she laughably said she did not do anything wrong when of course she had. The elderly gentleman was apparently admonishing her for her wrongdoing perhaps asking her to move her car to one of the open parking spaces so the spot could be used by a handicapped person when her boyfriend came at the man and blindsidedly violently shoved him to the ground without warning. If I were that man I might have felt sufficiently threatened to shoot the physically threatening thug who had already suddenly violently attacked me in self defense myself.

BTW I wonder if the violent shover had a criminal history.
He wasn't an elderly gentleman. He was in his 40's. HE was defending his girlfriend/wife, who was being harrassed by a stranger. Regardless of what SHE was doing wrong, the shooter didn't have the right to approach her and make demands. That's not what freedom of speech is, first of all. Second of all, it was in a parking lot of a commercial property - which is private property, not public. Freedom of speech laws don't apply to private property.

If it bothered him so much that the woman was in a handicapped spot, he should've gone into the store and informed the manager. Or called the police with the plate number and description of the driver. He chose to take the law into his own hands when he approached the woman in the car, and again when he shot and killed the guy who shoved him in defense of the woman.

Third, the man who shoved the shooter was UNARMED. The shooter killed someone who was unarmed.

[ColdNoMore]

He wasn't an elderly gentleman. He was in his 40's. HE was defending his girlfriend/wife, who was being harrassed by a stranger. Regardless of what SHE was doing wrong, the shooter didn't have the right to approach her and make demands. That's not what freedom of speech is, first of all. Second of all, it was in a parking lot of a commercial property - which is private property, not public. Freedom of speech laws don't apply to private property.

If it bothered him so much that the woman was in a handicapped spot, he should've gone into the store and informed the manager. Or called the police with the plate number and description of the driver. He chose to take the law into his own hands when he approached the woman in the car, and again when he shot and killed the guy who shoved him in defense of the woman.

Third, the man who shoved the shooter was UNARMED. The shooter killed someone who was unarmed.

As much as you might anger the gun nut/hero wannabe crowd...you perfectly summed it up! :thumbup:

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Every person living in the United States has a legal right to self-defense with or without SYG.

But not every person living in the United States has the legal right to own a gun, and use it for self-defense.

[Trayderjoe]

He wasn't an elderly gentleman. He was in his 40's. HE was defending his girlfriend/wife, who was being harrassed by a stranger. Regardless of what SHE was doing wrong, the shooter didn't have the right to approach her and make demands. That's not what freedom of speech is, first of all. Second of all, it was in a parking lot of a commercial property - which is private property, not public. Freedom of speech laws don't apply to private property.

If it bothered him so much that the woman was in a handicapped spot, he should've gone into the store and informed the manager. Or called the police with the plate number and description of the driver. He chose to take the law into his own hands when he approached the woman in the car, and again when he shot and killed the guy who shoved him in defense of the woman.

Third, the man who shoved the shooter was UNARMED. The shooter killed someone who was unarmed.

I don't think that anyone believes that the victim person should have gone up to the couple about the parking issue. However using words does NOT warrant a physical attack.

The fact that the assailant (the pusher) was unarmed does not mean that he would be unable to kill or seriously hurt the victim. Remember that the victim was on the ground-by virtue of a physical attack. Again, the police are investigating/have investigated and the prosecutor is/was doing likewise. I am sure that they have a copy of the video we have seen, what I am unaware of is if there is other video, which includes audio that they may also be in possession.

[Two Bills]

After he was pushed to floor, no further aggresive move was made towards the shooter. There was no need to draw the pistol or shoot. The man may have got away with murder. I hope the review puts the shooter in court. JMO.

[ColdNoMore]

I've seen a couple of yelling, shoving, incidents here in TV (mostly on/near the course) and yet in none of them was the person shoved...such a scared little pansy that they pulled a gun and killed the other guy. :oops:


Those who are stretching so far as to try and make this minor/single shoving incident, into justifiable homicide..must be really insecure wussies. :ohdear:

[graciegirl]

:1rotfl:


The data are in: Young people are definitely less racist than old people — Quartz (https://qz.com/983016/the-data-are-in-young-people-are-definitely-less-racist-than-old-people/)


Facts matter. :wave:

Most young people are less racist than some old people. Some young people are less racist than some old people. All young people are younger than all old people. Anyone who judges a whole group of people and gives them all the characteristics of a few is short sighted.

Are old people stupid or wise? The answer is some are both and some are neither and some are both in certain situations and some few are neither in all situations. Does decades of living and surviving health issues and loss of loved ones and financial hardships give information to some that others have not yet encountered? The answer is sometimes.

When some people are bigoted toward older people do some older people assume that they have had a bad situation with older relatives and friends? Most people think well of most older people and treat them respectfully and kindly. Most older people think well of most younger people and treat them respectfully and kindly.

When there is hatred, we can read it between the lines and feel it in the emoji's and the unwritten attitude of the writer. .

I believe all of us prejudge sometimes. Most try to be kind. Some hardly ever try to be kind. Some use rhetoric to mask hatred and perhaps those people have issues not easily seen or understood by others. I think being kind to someone until they have proven to be damn ornery is the key to happiness.

[Trayderjoe]

I've seen a couple of yelling, shoving, incidents here in TV (mostly on/near the course) and yet in none of them was the person shoved...such a scared little pansy that they pulled a gun and killed the other guy. :oops:


Those who are stretching so far as to try and make this minor/single shoving incident, into justifiable homicide..must be really insecure wussies. :ohdear:

Name calling again? As NONE of us has all of the facts (don't "facts matter"?), WE can't determine if the shooting is justified or not. Again, it is the police and the prosecutors who will make that determination. Everyone is entitled to their opinion on whether the shooting is justified or not, however attempts to demean people for their opinion is juvenile at best.

By the by, this was by NO mean a "minor" shoving, albeit it was a single shoving incident. Yes, the victim did not appear to end up with severe head trauma from cracking their skull on the concrete, but any time someone is violently shoved to the ground, the risk of injury and sever trauma is high.

[billethkid]

Does anybody actually think the pusher intended to do away with the life of the man on the ground?

The justification of the shooting offered to date are mere speculation.....influenced or not by the various slanted media reports......edited as usual to suit their purpose or position.

Second, third or further removed speculatin, manipulation offerings.......at best!

[l2ridehd]

After he was pushed to floor, no further aggresive move was made towards the shooter. There was no need to draw the pistol or shoot. The man may have got away with murder. I hope the review puts the shooter in court. JMO.


How do you know that? Without being there we are all just guessing. You may be correct or you may be wrong. Maybe the guy was telling his girlfriend to hand him the tire iron. Or get my gun or hand me my knife, or maybe nothing. We don't know. Maybe the shooter was the problem. Nobody knows, that is why it is being investigated. On the surface it looks like both over reacted. The guy on the ground was assaulted. That is a fact. The guy on the ground shot the guy who assaulted him. That is a fact. Beyond that we don't know much but speculation.

[Inexes@aol.com]

:rolleyes:barf:what::sigh:Most young people are less racist than some old people. Some young people are less racist than some old people. All young people are younger than all old people. Anyone who judges a whole group of people and gives them all the characteristics of a few is short sighted.

Are old people stupid or wise? The answer is some are both and some are neither and some are both in certain situations and some few are neither in all situations. Does decades of living and surviving health issues and loss of loved ones and financial hardships give information to some that others have not yet encountered? The answer is sometimes.

When some people are bigoted toward older people do some older people assume that they have had a bad situation with older relatives and friends? Most people think well of most older people and treat them respectfully and kindly. Most older people think well of most younger people and treat them respectfully and kindly.

When there is hatred, we can read it between the lines and feel it in the emoji's and the unwritten attitude of the writer. .

I believe all of us prejudge sometimes. Most try to be kind. Some hardly ever try to be kind. Some use rhetoric to mask hatred and perhaps those people have issues not easily seen or understood by others. I think being kind to someone until they have proven to be damn ornery is the key to happiness.

[Dynsol]

Stupid is as Stupids Do!:boxing2:

[graciegirl]

:rolleyes:barf:what::sigh:

I will clarify. What I was trying to say is...……... Don't mess with old people.


And don't try to teach a pig how to read, it doesn't work and it annoys the pig.

[ColdNoMore]

Name calling again? As NONE of us has all of the facts (don't "facts matter"?), WE can't determine if the shooting is justified or not. Again, it is the police and the prosecutors who will make that determination. Everyone is entitled to their opinion on whether the shooting is justified or not, however attempts to demean people for their opinion is juvenile at best.

By the by, this was by NO mean a "minor" shoving, albeit it was a single shoving incident. Yes, the victim did not appear to end up with severe head trauma from cracking their skull on the concrete, but any time someone is violently shoved to the ground, the risk of injury and sever trauma is high.

Ohhh the hypocrisy. :1rotfl:


As to the "facts," a known instigator got shoved to the ground after a boyfriend stuck up for his GF, who was being verbally confronted by a known instigator constantly looking for a fight and the insecure, wussie, 'hero wannabe'...killed him in cold blood for it. :oops:

The stretching being made to try and justify, what any reasonable and decent person can see with their own eyes was a homicide...is simply deplorable.


Dem's da facts. :ho:

[John_W]

The person who was shot would still be alive if he had done two things. First, if he had not parked in a handicap spot and second, he had not laid his hands on another person. Both actions were against the law.

[stan the man]

The person who was shot would still be alive if he had done two things. First, if he had not parked in a handicap spot and second, he had not laid his hands on another person. Both actions were against the law.

:bigbow::bigbow:

[ColdNoMore]

The person who was shot would still be alive if he had done two things. First, if he had not parked in a handicap spot and second, he had not laid his hands on another person. Both actions were against the law.

Are you frigging serious? :oops:

Parking in a handicap spot, is in any way some kind of justification...for the guy verbally assaulting the driver? :ohdear:

Why didn't the killer, who has obviously been looking for a fight...just call the cops instead?

Does this also mean that you wouldn't stand up for your wife/GF...if some stranger was verbally assaulting her?

Like I said previously, I would bet big money that if the woman had shot the bully because she felt her life was threatened from his confrontation...a whole lot of people would be singing a different tune. :wave:

Whereas at least I would be consistent in saying...THAT would have been unjustified also.

[ColdNoMore]

:rolleyes:barf:what::sigh:

:agree:

[tomwed]

Street Smart varies from place to place.

[Two Bills]

How do you know that? Without being there we are all just guessing. You may be correct or you may be wrong. Maybe the guy was telling his girlfriend to hand him the tire iron. Or get my gun or hand me my knife, or maybe nothing. We don't know. Maybe the shooter was the problem. Nobody knows, that is why it is being investigated. On the surface it looks like both over reacted. The guy on the ground was assaulted. That is a fact. The guy on the ground shot the guy who assaulted him. That is a fact. Beyond that we don't know much but speculation.

After the initial push, there was no forward aggressive move from the man who was shot. The man on floor had the opportunity to withdraw from the scene. Whatever verbals continued after the initial push, still does not justify the use of lethal force.
No way was that a life threatening stuation the shooter was in, when he fired that shot.
If he gets away with this, it practicly means any disagreement where a party gets a push, a smack round the ear, the victim can blow the other parties brains out with impunity!
JMO.

[redwitch]

If he gets away with this, it practicly means any disagreement where a party gets a push, a smack round the ear, the victim can blow the other parties brains out with impunity!
JMO.

You mean it doesn’t?

Okay, I’ve tried to keep silent but just not in me. So, here’s my take. The shooter always wanted to shoot someone — past actions and words show that. Sadly, SYG gives people like him the right to shoot, even though he started the confrontation. Did he truly fear for his life? I doubt it but I also doubt there is any way to prove he didn’t. Ultimately, he got away with murder and how the rest of the world feels about it is irrelevant. It is the law in this state.

[graciegirl]

You mean it doesn’t?

Okay, I’ve tried to keep silent but just not in me. So, here’s my take. The shooter always wanted to shoot someone — past actions and words show that. Sadly, SYG gives people like him the right to shoot, even though he started the confrontation. Did he truly fear for his life? I doubt it but I also doubt there is any way to prove he didn’t. Ultimately, he got away with murder and how the rest of the world feels about it is irrelevant. It is the law in this state.

This is similar to a much publicized and discussed case a few years ago. I felt that the shooter had the right at the time but since that time I now feel he was a jerk who was looking to shoot. However, I also felt the victim was probably up to something and his juvenile record was sealed so we will never know if he was a nice guy or a thug. No one should be killed if they aren't trying to hurt or harm another badly . I know you have a gun, Red, as you have discussed it on this forum and we G's do not have guns although we are great fans of the second amendment.... And we sit across the aisle from each other politically. I hope you know I recognize you as a smart cookie and a sage person although you used to rearrange my trash when you visited. ;)

[l2ridehd]

Your still speculating and guessing.

The pusher could have been going back to the car and saying "quick, hand me my gun, I am going to kill this SOB" Shooter justified

The pusher could have been saying " I am so sorry, had me the first aid kit" Shooter should be arrested and tried.

The point is you are all guessing which ever side you take. You don't know all the facts. You may never know all the facts. Let the LEO and the DA who are handling this make that call based on what they know. It's what we pay them for.

If you are for or against SYG then rally support for your position based on your belief about the law as it is written, not looking at some video and guessing what happened.

[RedChariot]

After the initial push, there was no forward aggressive move from the man who was shot. The man on floor had the opportunity to withdraw from the scene. Whatever verbals continued after the initial push, still does not justify the use of lethal force.
No way was that a life threatening stuation the shooter was in, when he fired that shot.
If he gets away with this, it practicly means any disagreement where a party gets a push, a smack round the ear, the victim can blow the other parties brains out with impunity!
JMO.

The shooter MURDERED the man that shoved him. No aggression from the man that was shot after the shove. This is not a situation that should have resulted in a death. The shooter should be criminally charged.

[graciegirl]

Your still speculating and guessing.

The pusher could have been going back to the car and saying "quick, hand me my gun, I am going to kill this SOB" Shooter justified

The pusher could have been saying " I am so sorry, had me the first aid kit" Shooter should be arrested and tried.

The point is you are all guessing which ever side you take. You don't know all the facts. You may never know all the facts. Let the LEO and the DA who are handling this make that call based on what they know. It's what we pay them for.

If you are for or against SYG then rally support for your position based on your belief about the law as it is written, not looking at some video and guessing what happened.

Excellent post. AGAIN.
Your fan,
Grace Gantner

[Cedwards38]

Guntown - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4T41M7cCqsU)

[Marathon Man]

Those of you who believe that there was no aggression after the shove, please have another look at the video. After the shove, the pusher takes three steps forward directly toward the shooter. He stops and backs up as the shooter is pulling his weapon. Those three steps are enough to make the shooter believe that more action is coming. At that point SYG is in effect and it longer matters what actually could or would have happened next. SYG will be debated every time something like this happens.

As I have said before. I am not a fan of any of the three people involved in this. One simple change by any of them and nothing would have happened. Escalation led to an extreme outcome to a simple situation.

[l2ridehd]

The shooter MURDERED the man that shoved him. No aggression from the man that was shot after the shove. This is not a situation that should have resulted in a death. The shooter should be criminally charged.

As stated above you're guessing. The pusher was aggressive. He pushed the man to the ground. Yes he was moving away. Do you know why? No you don't, nobody but the interviewing LEO has any idea.

Suppose as I suggested he was turning back to the car and asking his GF to hand him his gun? Was the shooter justified then?

I am at a total loss how folks can convict someone with so little information. You see a video and think you know exactly what happened. None of us do. Let the law take it's natural course. There has to be some reason why he was not charged immediately. I trust that the LEO knew what he was doing. And if not, I am sure the DA will correct the problem.

[trichard]

I saw that on the news. Took place in Clearwater. Guy pushed a man down who was carrying a concealed weapon. Argument over a parking spot and the girlfriend's parking job or something like that.

Just do not get the result that this shooting was justified. Seems like a ridiculous slippery slope.

The aggressor was a physically abusive bully and suffered the consequences.

[RedChariot]

As stated above you're guessing. The pusher was aggressive. He pushed the man to the ground. Yes he was moving away. Do you know why? No you don't, nobody but the interviewing LEO has any idea.

Suppose as I suggested he was turning back to the car and asking his GF to hand him his gun? Was the shooter justified then?

I am at a total loss how folks can convict someone with so little information. You see a video and think you know exactly what happened. None of us do. Let the law take it's natural course. There has to be some reason why he was not charged immediately. I trust that the LEO knew what he was doing. And if not, I am sure the DA will correct the problem.

Someone should not die because they push a busy body that should have minded his own business. Surely SYG was meant for a more extreme situation.

[Trayderjoe]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdNoMore View Post
I've seen a couple of yelling, shoving, incidents here in TV (mostly on/near the course) and yet in none of them was the person shoved...such a scared little pansy that they pulled a gun and killed the other guy. Those who are stretching so far as to try and make this minor/single shoving incident, into justifiable homicide..must be really insecure wussies."

Quote:
Name calling again? As NONE of us has all of the facts (don't "facts matter"?), WE can't determine if the shooting is justified or not. Again, it is the police and the prosecutors who will make that determination. Everyone is entitled to their opinion on whether the shooting is justified or not, however attempts to demean people for their opinion is juvenile at best.

By the by, this was by NO mean a "minor" shoving, albeit it was a single shoving incident. Yes, the victim did not appear to end up with severe head trauma from cracking their skull on the concrete, but any time someone is violently shoved to the ground, the risk of injury and sever trauma is high.
__________________
"Kindness is more important than wisdom, and the recognition of this is the beginning of wisdom."
-
Theodore Rubin

Ohhh the hypocrisy. :1rotfl:

As to the "facts," a known instigator got shoved to the ground after a boyfriend stuck up for his GF, who was being verbally confronted by a known instigator constantly looking for a fight and the insecure, wussie, 'hero wannabe'...killed him in cold blood for it. :oops:

The stretching being made to try and justify, what any reasonable and decent person can see with their own eyes was a homicide...is simply deplorable.

Dem's da facts. :ho:

I am willing to take the jab about hypocrisy, since it appears the difference between commenting about behavior versus blatant name calling of people is lost on some people.

I reiterate that it is the job of the police and the prosecutor to review these cases and determine if the shooting was justifiable or not, and they will do so based upon all of the evidence collected. No one on this board gets to make that determination, unless there is a trial and we are on the jury. Beyond that, we all get our opinion, however without assessing all of the facts, an absolute finding of guilt on this board is premature. The vitriol that accompanies opinions only demonstrates an emotional attachment to a position, not a decision based upon facts.

[rivaridger1]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdNoMore View Post
I've seen a couple of yelling, shoving, incidents here in TV (mostly on/near the course) and yet in none of them was the person shoved...such a scared little pansy that they pulled a gun and killed the other guy. Those who are stretching so far as to try and make this minor/single shoving incident, into justifiable homicide..must be really insecure wussies."

Quote:
Name calling again? As NONE of us has all of the facts (don't "facts matter"?), WE can't determine if the shooting is justified or not. Again, it is the police and the prosecutors who will make that determination. Everyone is entitled to their opinion on whether the shooting is justified or not, however attempts to demean people for their opinion is juvenile at best.

By the by, this was by NO mean a "minor" shoving, albeit it was a single shoving incident. Yes, the victim did not appear to end up with severe head trauma from cracking their skull on the concrete, but any time someone is violently shoved to the ground, the risk of injury and sever trauma is high.
__________________
"Kindness is more important than wisdom, and the recognition of this is the beginning of wisdom."
-
Theodore Rubin



I am willing to take the jab about hypocrisy, since it appears the difference between commenting about behavior versus blatant name calling of people is lost on some people.

I reiterate that it is the job of the police and the prosecutor to review these cases and determine if the shooting was justifiable or not, and they will do so based upon all of the evidence collected. No one on this board gets to make that determination, unless there is a trial and we are on the jury. Beyond that, we all get our opinion, however without assessing all of the facts, an absolute finding of guilt on this board is premature. The vitriol that accompanies opinions only demonstrates an emotional attachment to a position, not a decision based upon facts.

Well said.

[Trayderjoe]

Quote:
Originally Posted by John_W View Post
The person who was shot would still be alive if he had done two things. First, if he had not parked in a handicap spot and second, he had not laid his hands on another person. Both actions were against the law.

Are you frigging serious? :oops:

Parking in a handicap spot, is in any way some kind of justification...for the guy verbally assaulting the driver? :ohdear:

I find it interesting that the girl friend was verbally "assaulted", but the victim received a "minor/single push". The common definition of the verb for assault is the physical attack of someone, such as to hit, strike, physically attack.

Why didn't the killer, who has obviously been looking for a fight...just call the cops instead? The VICTIM should have let the police handle it, I haven't seen a post that suggests his actions were the best way to handle the situation.

Does this also mean that you wouldn't stand up for your wife/GF...if some stranger was verbally assaulting her?

Yelling, cursing and verbal abuse does NOT automatically give anyone the right to put their hands on someone. The best response is ensure her safety (roll up the windows, lock the car door) and walk/drive away and let the police handle it.


Like I said previously, I would bet big money that if the woman had shot the bully because she felt her life was threatened from his confrontation...a whole lot of people would be singing a different tune. :wave:

Same scenario as an earlier post and the same response. Had the woman shot the victim claiming she was in fear of her life, she could potentially be charged with murder since the boyfriend was standing right there next to the victim, AND the victim did not pull his handgun until AFTER he was assaulted.

Whereas at least I would be consistent in saying...THAT would have been unjustified also.

[Trayderjoe]

After the initial push, there was no forward aggressive move from the man who was shot. The man on floor had the opportunity to withdraw from the scene. Whatever verbals continued after the initial push, still does not justify the use of lethal force.
No way was that a life threatening stuation the shooter was in, when he fired that shot.
If he gets away with this, it practicly means any disagreement where a party gets a push, a smack round the ear, the victim can blow the other parties brains out with impunity!
JMO.

I disagree. The victim was unexpectedly assaulted and violently pushed to the ground. Since none of us know his physical condition (does he have bad knees, was he "woozy" from hitting his head on the ground, etc.), we don't know how long it would take him to stand up in order to flee the scene, and if in the act of standing up, he would be exposed to a further assault. Add in the Tueller Drill which proved that a person could move 21 feet in 1.5 seconds, the victim could easily have been attacked again. The victim had a legal right to be where he was and the Stand Your Ground Law removes the responsibility from him to escape. Even if we were in a Duty to Retreat state, that requirement is predicated on the victim being able to safely escape the situation before he would be required to retreat.

Once again, LAW ENFORCEMENT has the job to determine if the shooting was an act of self defense. The shooter will ALWAYS face the potential for criminal charges to be brought unless self defense is determined (by LAW ENFORCEMENT) to be justified.

Should he have taken it upon himself to yell at the people? No, not at all. His doing so was a stupid decision, the boyfriend, after violently shoving him to the ground, became a criminal once he assaulted the victim.

[Trayderjoe]

Someone should not die because they push a busy body that should have minded his own business. Surely SYG was meant for a more extreme situation.

SYG only removes the requirement that if a person is somewhere he/she is legally allowed to be, he/she does not HAVE to escape even if it is safe to do so. It does NOT automatically give someone a "free pass" to shoot as the shooter will still have to meet the self defense requirements. I hate "what ifs", but for the purposes of this distinction only, had the "loudmouth" (my words) physically assaulted the girlfriend, then the "loudmouth" would have committed a crime. The boyfriend, immediately pushing away the "loudmouth" would be justified in protecting her. Had the "loudmouth" then pulled a gun and shot the boyfriend, the "loudmouth" would not be able to claim self defense and would be charged with murder since his criminal act initiated the sequence of events

[BobnBev]

:popcorn:Boy, what wouldn't I give for a cold beer to go with my :popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

[manaboutown]

I got curious about Florida's self defense statute (stand your ground), looked it up and discovered it to be a very necessary, reasonable, proper and good law.

776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.—
(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.
(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.

[billethkid]

Fairly specific language that ultimately comes down to interpretation of the shooter.....and what they say immediately after the shooting.

The wording most definitely allows for all interpretation/opinions/WAGS......as demonstrated on this forum.

A field day of opportunity for the legal folks who also do interpreting, opinionating and WAGing.

[ColdNoMore]

I find it interesting that the girl friend was verbally "assaulted", but the victim received a "minor/single push". The common definition of the verb for assault is the physical attack of someone, such as to hit, strike, physically attack.
Might I suggest that you educate yourself on ALL of the definitions of 'Assault?"

Here...I'll help you out.

Assault and Battery | Trupiano Law (http://www.trupianolaw.com/practice-areas/criminal-defense-white-collar-crime/assault-and-battery/)



The VICTIM should have let the police handle it, I haven't seen a post that suggests his actions were the best way to handle the situation.
Amazing, simply amazing.

You're implying that the person, who at the absolute WORST might have a sore butt is somehow 'THE VICTIM'...instead of the UNARMED man who was murdered?

How whacked out is that? :oops:


Yelling, cursing and verbal abuse does NOT automatically give anyone the right to put their hands on someone. The best response is ensure her safety (roll up the windows, lock the car door) and walk/drive away and let the police handle it.
So the woman being verbally assaulted should have taken action to avoid the confrontation, but the hero wannabe who had been itching for a confrontation to shoot someone...had the right to become the handicap parking police?

Really?

Your continued and totally backward defense of the known instigator, who had been obviously looking for a chance to shoot someone...perfectly demonstrates why more reasonable gun laws need to be instituted.


Same scenario as an earlier post and the same response. Had the woman shot the victim claiming she was in fear of her life, she could potentially be charged with murder since the boyfriend was standing right there next to the victim, AND the victim did not pull his handgun until AFTER he was assaulted.Wrong again.

The murderer started verbally assaulting the lady in the car long BEFORE the REAL VICTIM even came out of the store, much less before he was murdered while backing away...from the bully sitting on his butt.

In fact, it was another customer that came in and told the now dead man who was simply protecting his woman from a nutcase/hero wannabe...who was playing parking lot cop and just looking for a reason to shoot someone.

But hey I get it, you (and all too many others) think a shove is a justifiable reason, to murder an UNARMED man who was simply standing up for his wife/GF...who was being verbally assaulted.

I think the lesson here is that it's up to some wives/GF's to run away or find a way to protect themselves...because they can't count on their man to stand up for them.

What a bunch of wussie ammosexuals...we have running around these days. :ohdear:


Hopefully, common sense and decency will ultimately prevail and the instigator/murderer..will eventually be charged by prosecutors.

I'm not betting on it though.



:wave:

:ho:

[Trayderjoe]

So let's revisit once again. Does anyone have a video/recording of the incident under discussion? Absent of that, we don't KNOW what was actually said at anytime for the ENTIRE incident. We don't know what the person actually said that started the incident, nor do we KNOW that was said during the exchange between the boyfriend and the person who shot the boyfriend. Those are facts (and I concede if the dialogue was released by law enforcement prior to this post I am unaware of the content). I would be remiss if I led you to believe that the man who committed the assault, after pushing the man to the ground, said "I am going to kill you you SOB". If you saw the push, heard that statement, and let's throw in, "give me my damn gun" would your opinion change in anyway? Maybe, maybe not.

What has been reported in the press is that witness(es) indicated that a man had a verbal exchange regarding handicap parking, and that this man was known to do so. The video shows that one man assaulted another man by violently pushing him to the ground. We also know that the victim of THAT attack drew a weapon and shot the person who committed the assault, (with that person later dying). Law enforcement (as far as I know at this time) is still investigating, and a preliminary finding by the police department was this was a self defense shooting. Note that I have not heard the final arbiter of the decision to prosecute, the district attorney, or even the state attorney general make a final decision for or against prosecution.

Original post reply:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdNoMore View Post
Are you frigging serious?

Parking in a handicap spot, is in any way some kind of justification...for the guy verbally assaulting the driver?

I find it interesting that the girl friend was verbally "assaulted", but the victim received a "minor/single push". The common definition of the verb for assault is the physical attack of someone, such as to hit, strike, physically attack.

Why didn't the killer, who has obviously been looking for a fight...just call the cops instead? The VICTIM should have let the police handle it, I haven't seen a post that suggests his actions were the best way to handle the situation.

Does this also mean that you wouldn't stand up for your wife/GF...if some stranger was verbally assaulting her?

Yelling, cursing and verbal abuse does NOT automatically give anyone the right to put their hands on someone. The best response is ensure her safety (roll up the windows, lock the car door) and walk/drive away and let the police handle it.

Like I said previously, I would bet big money that if the woman had shot the bully because she felt her life was threatened from his confrontation...a whole lot of people would be singing a different tune.

Same scenario as an earlier post and the same response. Had the woman shot the victim claiming she was in fear of her life, she could potentially be charged with murder since the boyfriend was standing right there next to the victim, AND the victim did not pull his handgun until AFTER he was assaulted.

Whereas at least I would be consistent in saying...THAT would have been unjustified also.


And the responses:

Originally Posted by Trayderjoe View Post
I find it interesting that the girl friend was verbally "assaulted", but the victim received a "minor/single push". The common definition of the verb for assault is the physical attack of someone, such as to hit, strike, physically attack.
Might I suggest that you educate yourself on ALL of the definitions of 'Assault?"

Here...I'll help you out.

Assault and Battery | Trupiano Law

Thank you but I am aware of the various definitions for assault and I did not say the word was incorrect. My point was/and is that "assault" is an inflammatory word, especially when compared to a person being pushed so hard that they fall to the concrete and roll over from the momentum, but the adjective used in that case was "minor" shove.

The VICTIM should have let the police handle it, I haven't seen a post that suggests his actions were the best way to handle the situation.
Amazing, simply amazing.

You're implying that the person, who at the absolute WORST might have a sore butt is somehow 'THE VICTIM'...instead of the UNARMED man who was murdered?

How whacked out is that?

I am not implying it, I am stating that the person who was pushed was a victim. The sad part is that he isn't the only victim of this incident.

Yelling, cursing and verbal abuse does NOT automatically give anyone the right to put their hands on someone. The best response is ensure her safety (roll up the windows, lock the car door) and walk/drive away and let the police handle it.
So the woman being verbally assaulted should have taken action to avoid the confrontation, but the hero wannabe who had been itching for a confrontation to shoot someone...had the right to become the handicap parking police?

Really?

I am not aware of anyone (and I know that I have not) suggesting that the person who shot the boyfriend had "the right to become the handicap parking police". The response in green above, was actually from an earlier posting which asked "Does this also mean that you wouldn't stand up for your wife/GF...if some stranger was verbally assaulting her?" Having said that, if any one of the three people in this engagement had avoided the confrontation, this whole discussion might not have been initiated.

Your continued and totally backward defense of the known instigator, who had been obviously looking for a chance to shoot someone...perfectly demonstrates why more reasonable gun laws need to be instituted.


Actually, I am defending the criminal investigation process, as I don't have all of the facts at this time. Should there be a trial, the jury will make that final decision. What I will say is that there was a series of bad decisions and someone paid for it with their life.

Same scenario as an earlier post and the same response. Had the woman shot the victim claiming she was in fear of her life, she could potentially be charged with murder since the boyfriend was standing right there next to the victim, AND the victim did not pull his handgun until AFTER he was assaulted.Wrong again.

The murderer started verbally assaulting the lady in the car long BEFORE the REAL VICTIM even came out of the store, much less before he was murdered while backing away...from the bully sitting on his butt.

In fact, it was another customer that came in and told the now dead man who was simply protecting his woman from a nutcase/hero wannabe...who was playing parking lot cop and just looking for a reason to shoot someone.

But hey I get it, you (and all too many others) think a shove is a justifiable reason, to murder an UNARMED man who was simply standing up for his wife/GF...who was being verbally assaulted.

I think the lesson here is that it's up to some wives/GF's to run away or find a way to protect themselves...because they can't count on their man to stand up for them.

What a bunch of wussie ammosexuals...we have running around these days.


Hopefully, common sense and decency will ultimately prevail and the instigator/murderer..will eventually be charged by prosecutors.

I'm not betting on it though.

I mentioned in a previous post that when vitriol is wrapped into an opinion, that is usually a sign that the opinion is emotional versus based upon fact. I should have included shaping information, as well as the use of inflammatory wording, to incite an emotional response and keep the facts out of the discussion.

The short of it is that no one should fall for the emotional argument. Everyone absolutely has the right to their opinion that the shooting was or was NOT legal. Rather than be part of a lynch mob, perhaps awaiting the final decision from law enforcement would be prudent?

[manaboutown]

A prior post brought out the pusher had a criminal record, a drug conviction and an aggravated battery case where the charges were dropped. He was not tried and cleared. I wonder if his victim was his girlfriend or another person. Abused girlfriends tend to drop such charges and of course they get battered again and again whereas a third party is usually less likely to drop the charges unless they are afraid of retribution.

According to the Florida statute the pusher criminally battered his victim, the man who drew a handgun and shot him.

The 2018 Florida Statutes


Title XLVI
CRIMES
Chapter 784
ASSAULT; BATTERY; CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE
View Entire Chapter
784.03 Battery; felony battery.—
(1)(a) The offense of battery occurs when a person:
1. Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other; or
2. Intentionally causes bodily harm to another person.
(b) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person who commits battery commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(2) A person who has one prior conviction for battery, aggravated battery, or felony battery and who commits any second or subsequent battery commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. For purposes of this subsection, “conviction” means a determination of guilt that is the result of a plea or a trial, regardless of whether adjudication is withheld or a plea of nolo contendere is entered.
History.—s. 5, Feb. 10, 1832; RS 2401; s. 1, ch. 5135, 1903; GS 3227; RGS 5060; CGL 7162; s. 2, ch. 70-88; s. 730, ch. 71-136; s. 19, ch. 74-383; s. 9, ch. 75-298; s. 172, ch. 91-224; s. 5, ch. 96-392; s. 4, ch. 2001-50.

[Kenswing]

The murderer started verbally assaulting the lady in the car long BEFORE the REAL VICTIM even came out of the store, much less before he was murdered while backing away...from the bully sitting on his butt.

In fact, it was another customer that came in and told the now dead man who was simply protecting his woman from a nutcase/hero wannabe...who was playing parking lot cop and just looking for a reason to shoot someone.

But hey I get it, you (and all too many others) think a shove is a justifiable reason, to murder an UNARMED man who was simply standing up for his wife/GF...who was being verbally assaulted.

I think the lesson here is that it's up to some wives/GF's to run away or find a way to protect themselves...because they can't count on their man to stand up for them.

What a bunch of wussie ammosexuals...we have running around these days.


Hopefully, common sense and decency will ultimately prevail and the instigator/murderer..will eventually be charged by prosecutors.

I'm not betting on it though. :wave:

:ho:
Aren't you always preaching that facts matter? How can you continually call the shooter a murderer when that fact is as of yet not true. At this point he is NOT a murderer. I haven't read the latest news on this but I'm not even sure if he's a suspect of committing murder.

Just because he is a murderer in your mind doesn't make it fact.

[Marathon Man]

... the "loudmouth" would not be able to claim self defense and would be charged with murder since his criminal act initiated the sequence of events

The Zimmerman case says other wise.

[ColdNoMore]

Aren't you always preaching that facts matter? How can you continually call the shooter a murderer when that fact is as of yet not true. At this point he is NOT a murderer. I haven't read the latest news on this but I'm not even sure if he's a suspect of committing murder.

Just because he is a murderer in your mind doesn't make it fact.

I watched the video (numerous times)...didn't you? ;)

I guess by your reasoning, you don't think OJ is a murderer either...right?

Go ahead, you can say it... "OJ didn't murder anyone." :D

Particularly since there wasn't any video of him doing it.


:wave:

[Kenswing]

I watched the video (numerous times)...didn't you? ;)

I guess by your reasoning, you don't think OJ is a murderer either...right?


:wave:Just because your interpretation of the video makes you THINK he's a murderer still does NOT make it fact.. It makes it opinion.

[Trayderjoe]

The Zimmerman case says other wise.

I went back to the post from where your pulled your quote, and what I had written was:

"I hate "what ifs", but for the purposes of this distinction only, had the "loudmouth" (my words) physically assaulted the girlfriend, then the "loudmouth" would have committed a crime. The boyfriend, immediately pushing away the "loudmouth" would be justified in protecting her. Had the "loudmouth" then pulled a gun and shot the boyfriend, the "loudmouth" would not be able to claim self defense and would be charged with murder since his criminal act initiated the sequence of events."

Since in this example, the "loudmouth" committed a crime, he could not claim self defense and would therefore face prosecution.

What crime did George Zimmerman commit involving Trayvon Martin, that would link to the quote above? He was acquitted at trial as he was found to have acted in self defense.

[Marathon Man]

I went back to the post from where your pulled your quote, and what I had written was:

"I hate "what ifs", but for the purposes of this distinction only, had the "loudmouth" (my words) physically assaulted the girlfriend, then the "loudmouth" would have committed a crime. The boyfriend, immediately pushing away the "loudmouth" would be justified in protecting her. Had the "loudmouth" then pulled a gun and shot the boyfriend, the "loudmouth" would not be able to claim self defense and would be charged with murder since his criminal act initiated the sequence of events."

Since in this example, the "loudmouth" committed a crime, he could not claim self defense and would therefore face prosecution.

What crime did George Zimmerman commit involving Trayvon Martin, that would link to the quote above? He was acquitted at trial as he was found to have acted in self defense.

Zimmerman was found not guilty because, even though he was the instigator, it did not matter. Nothing mattered except the few seconds prior to pulling his gun. So, in the new case, even if "loudmouth" is found to have committed crimes that led to the shooting, it will not matter. He was in fear and legally able to pull and shoot. He could be charged with other crimes, but I don't see any on the video. And apparently neither did police.

It's one of the reasons many people want to get rid of SYG. You can create the problem and end up claiming self defense.

[manaboutown]

"Loudmouth" did not initiate the problem. Illegally parking in a spot reserved for the handicapped created the problem.

[B-flat]

"Loudmouth" did not initiate the problem. Illegally parking in a spot reserved for the handicapped created the problem.

Ignorance is a handicap but that was no excuse for the woman to park in a handicapped space.

[Marathon Man]

One thing that I am pretty sure of - No one is likely to change their opinion by reading a post on here. This debate will be stirred every time a new incident of this time occurs.

OK. Last post for me on this. Moving on.

[Taltarzac725]

Still cannot believe that someone lost his life because he pushed someone over an argument over a handicapped parking space. Was this killing justified under the law of FL? We will see. Ethically in a Christian context, I just do not see it. Three kids lost a father over something as stupid as this?

[manaboutown]

Still cannot believe that someone lost his life because he pushed someone over an argument over a handicapped parking space. Was this killing justified under the law of FL? We will see. Ethically in a Christian context, I just do not see it. Three kids lost a father over something as stupid as this?

The man was criminally battered, thrown to the pavement by a blindside violent shove. If he was in fear of ensuing grievous injury or possibly death he was legally justified in shooting his attacker.

[Trayderjoe]

Zimmerman was found not guilty because, even though he was the instigator, it did not matter. Nothing mattered except the few seconds prior to pulling his gun. So, in the new case, even if "loudmouth" is found to have committed crimes that led to the shooting, it will not matter. He was in fear and legally able to pull and shoot. He could be charged with other crimes, but I don't see any on the video. And apparently neither did police.

It's one of the reasons many people want to get rid of SYG. You can create the problem and end up claiming self defense.

Zimmerman was acquitted at trial. He was also investigated for civil rights violations by the Department of Justice for three years after which the DOJ concluded there was not sufficient evidence that he intentionally violated the civil rights of Martin. Had Zimmerman committed a crime at the start, before he was attacked, he would not have been able to claim self defense and most likely convicted (can't give an absolute here since we don't know, so please don't suggest that he still would have been acquitted). I am curious as to why there is an insistence that Zimmerman committed a crime by people who were not at the scene or on the jury, when the judicial system has returned an innocent verdict based upon self defense?

I believe that most people who want to get rid of SYG don't understand what the law entails, nor do they understand the requirements that need to be met in order for a valid claim of self defense to be made. This may be due to jumping on the band wagon, or a lack of researching a subject before taking a stance one way or another. Remember, in order to claim self defense, you are admitting you killed someone. If your claim of self defense doesn't hold water, you have just admitted to murder.

A person may be a loudmouth, but under the law, no one has the right to put their hands on that individual because they don't like what was said or how it was said. If someone doesn't want to hear it, they have at least two legal choices: they can call the police and ask them to intervene or they can leave. It may not be convenient or fair to have to leave if that is the choice, but then there is no confrontation.

[Daddymac]

1. The "pusher" backed up, physically, away from "ground guy" after shoving the guy.
2. Assuming the "ground guy" felt threatened (which would be understandable) there is still no reason to KILL the pusher. Ground guy was on the ground. Ground guy could've shot the pusher in the foot. Or leg. Or arm. Or hip, or shoulder. It was a big looking pusher, and they were close range. Not much chance to miss. Ground guy chose a death shot. Ground guy committed murder, not self-defense. Cops chose not to allow charges to be pressed.

Wow..
Blind you are!
The “pusher” Should Not Have “pushed”
SIMPLE!!

[dewilson58]

Sheriff held a very clear press conference.

Complicated law, but he walked thru the legal steps.

[CFrance]

Zimmerman was acquitted at trial. He was also investigated for civil rights violations by the Department of Justice for three years after which the DOJ concluded there was not sufficient evidence that he intentionally violated the civil rights of Martin. Had Zimmerman committed a crime at the start, before he was attacked, he would not have been able to claim self defense and most likely convicted (can't give an absolute here since we don't know, so please don't suggest that he still would have been acquitted). I am curious as to why there is an insistence that Zimmerman committed a crime by people who were not at the scene or on the jury, when the judicial system has returned an innocent verdict based upon self defense?

I believe that most people who want to get rid of SYG don't understand what the law entails, nor do they understand the requirements that need to be met in order for a valid claim of self defense to be made. This may be due to jumping on the band wagon, or a lack of researching a subject before taking a stance one way or another. Remember, in order to claim self defense, you are admitting you killed someone. If your claim of self defense doesn't hold water, you have just admitted to murder.

A person may be a loudmouth, but under the law, no one has the right to put their hands on that individual because they don't like what was said or how it was said. If someone doesn't want to hear it, they have at least two legal choices: they can call the police and ask them to intervene or they can leave. It may not be convenient or fair to have to leave if that is the choice, but then there is no confrontation.

As much as I normally disagree with you on things, your [B] makes sense. As I said in my original post, most of us a) wouldn't park illegally in a handicapped space, and b) wouldn't react violently to the loudmouth. The happenings here were wrong from the beginning to the end.

On the other hand, I don't think this anger-infused jackwagon should get away with murder. He probably will. But hopefully karma will take care of him the way it seems to have taken care of Zimmerman.

[Topspinmo]

We see the video but don't know what was said? Here opinion that don't mean Shyt!

The shooter may of just walked up and said you can't park here without handicapped stickers? The attitude of the illegal law breaker could of went off on him. Now the guy comes out of store hears his mistress yelling? He rushes over shoved the with blast in the chest that sends him flying to ground several feet away? He hovers over him for seconds till he sees the gun come out in which he begains to have O **** monument and start retreat? The guy on ground thinks he going to get battered or worse so he pulls the trigger.

Opinions of what happen we all have them, (which don't mean Shyt, they are opinions based on our prejudices). So, bottom line none of use should pre- judge with our opinions what happen when we wasn't there or have ANY facts.

This thread should of been closed after the first day cause it as most controversial threads go off the deep end.

[JP]

The guy that got shot was obviously a bully parked in a handicapped spot he shoudn't have been in. Does he deserve to be shot? Probably not but he was violating the law and than tried to bully the guy that shot him.

[Steve9930]

After watching the video the shooting was justified. I would have done the same. The pusher was aggressive and took an aggressive stance after he pushed the gentleman. No telling what the next move would have been. The shooter used minimum deadly force, fired once and the man backed away. The shooter never shot again. No criminal charges will be filed. However he should expect a civil suit. The reason you need Insurance if you carry a weapon.

[billethkid]

After watching the video the shooting was justified. I would have done the same. The pusher was aggressive and took an aggressive stance after he pushed the gentleman. No telling what the next move would have been. The shooter used minimum deadly force, fired once and the man backed away. The shooter never shot again. No criminal charges will be filed. However he should expect a civil suit. The reason you need Insurance if you carry a weapon.

So one shot that killed the man is minimum deadly force???? Really?
There is no such thing as minimum deadly force when one chooses to shoot another person, center of mass.

The man he shot died of the gun shot!!!!!!!!!!!

Minimal ????? Surely there is jesting intended.....that most certainly has no humor!!

[CFrance]

After watching the video the shooting was justified. I would have done the same. The pusher was aggressive and took an aggressive stance after he pushed the gentleman. No telling what the next move would have been. The shooter used minimum deadly force, fired once and the man backed away. The shooter never shot again. No criminal charges will be filed. However he should expect a civil suit. The reason you need Insurance if you carry a weapon.
There's an oxymoron...

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

I saw the guy that did the pushing back off once the guy was on the ground. Sometimes these things happen so fast that it's difficult to say exactly whether it was right or wrong.

It seemed to me that when the pusher began to back off, the guy on the ground should have held his fire.

Just because the police at the scene determined that this was a justified shooting it doesn't mean that criminal charges won't be pressed. A prosecutor may look at the video and have a different conclusion.

This is a tough one. It almost appears to me that the guy that did the shooting was looking to shoot someone. Based on the statements made by the store owner, he has caused problems before. It seems that he was looking for trouble.

The guy who pushed him was in the wrong to put his hands on him, but once he pushed him down, he seemed to back off. One an attacker is retreating, it seems to me that shooting is justified. I think a lot has to do with the timing and how fast things happened.

Those of us that carry have been trained that you shouldn't draw your gun unless you intend to shoot. A lot of people seem to think that means if you draw your gun, you have to shoot. The way I see it is that if you show your gun and the threat ends, you don't have a right to shoot.

[dewilson58]

I saw the guy that did the pushing back off once the guy was on the ground. Sometimes these things happen so fast that it's difficult to say exactly whether it was right or wrong.

It seemed to me that when the pusher began to back off, the guy on the ground should have held his fire.

Just because the police at the scene determined that this was a justified shooting it doesn't mean that criminal charges won't be pressed. A prosecutor may look at the video and have a different conclusion.

This is a tough one. It almost appears to me that the guy that did the shooting was looking to shoot someone. Based on the statements made by the store owner, he has caused problems before. It seems that he was looking for trouble.

The guy who pushed him was in the wrong to put his hands on him, but once he pushed him down, he seemed to back off. One an attacker is retreating, it seems to me that shooting is justified. I think a lot has to do with the timing and how fast things happened.

Those of us that carry have been trained that you shouldn't draw your gun unless you intend to shoot. A lot of people seem to think that means if you draw your gun, you have to shoot. The way I see it is that if you show your gun and the threat ends, you don't have a right to shoot.

"One an attacker is retreating, it seems to me that shooting is justified."

Is that what you meant to type??

[BobnBev]

If the prosecutor decides NOT to file charges, and upholds the SYG law, then there will be no civil suit. That's in the law.

[dewilson58]

If the prosecutor decides NOT to file charges, and upholds the SYG law, then there will be no civil suit. That's in the law.

Really?? Hmmmm.

[CFrance]

I saw the guy that did the pushing back off once the guy was on the ground. Sometimes these things happen so fast that it's difficult to say exactly whether it was right or wrong.

It seemed to me that when the pusher began to back off, the guy on the ground should have held his fire.

Just because the police at the scene determined that this was a justified shooting it doesn't mean that criminal charges won't be pressed. A prosecutor may look at the video and have a different conclusion.

This is a tough one. It almost appears to me that the guy that did the shooting was looking to shoot someone. Based on the statements made by the store owner, he has caused problems before. It seems that he was looking for trouble.

The guy who pushed him was in the wrong to put his hands on him, but once he pushed him down, he seemed to back off. One an attacker is retreating, it seems to me that shooting is justified. I think a lot has to do with the timing and how fast things happened.

Those of us that carry have been trained that you shouldn't draw your gun unless you intend to shoot. A lot of people seem to think that means if you draw your gun, you have to shoot. The way I see it is that if you show your gun and the threat ends, you don't have a right to shoot.
These two statements seem contradictory. Did you leave a word out of the second statement, or...?

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

"One an attacker is retreating, it seems to me that shooting is justified."

Is that what you meant to type??

No, obviously a typographical error.

What I meant to type is, "Once an attacker is retreating, it seems to me that shooting is unjustified."

Thanks for pointing that out.

[dewilson58]

No, obviously a typographical error.

What I meant to type is, "Once an attacker is retreating, it seems to me that shooting is unjustified."

Thanks for pointing that out.

My middle name is Typo.

[Steve9930]

So one shot that killed the man is minimum deadly force???? Really?
There is no such thing as minimum deadly force when one chooses to shoot another person, center of mass.

The man he shot died of the gun shot!!!!!!!!!!!

Minimal ????? Surely there is jesting intended.....that most certainly has no humor!!

Absolutely not. It appears you do not know the law. He used the minimum amount of force. he did not shoot several times, he did not shoot while the man was retreating. he followed the law in using force to protect himself.

[Steve9930]

There's an oxymoron...

Not at all, read the law.

[Steve9930]

Wow..
Blind you are!
The “pusher” Should Not Have “pushed”
SIMPLE!!

Absolutely correct. The aggressor backed up only because he had been shot. Previous to that the video clearly shows an aggressive stance. He was going to do more. Shooting was justified.

[BobnBev]

Absolutely not. It appears you do not know the law. He used the minimum amount of force. he did not shoot several times, he did not shoot while the man was retreating. he followed the law in using force to protect himself.

Correct. You use the minimum amount of force to stop the threat. In this case, one shot did the trick. Had the aggressor kept coming, multiple shots would have been justified.

[billethkid]

Minimal force = one shot!
Maybe for some, lawyers, etc.
To me and many others minimal.......MINIMAL.....force does not include an action that can result in death.......

We all know how the law/ legal system works......
Use
Abuse
Or hide behind

The letter of the law.

MINIMAL and death do not go in the same sentence.

Quoting a legal interpretation does not make it right.

I wonder how a lawyer would explain to a family member of the deceased how a LETHAL result, in this case the death of another person was the acceptable use of minimal response??

To each his own.

This thread is approaching "minimal" merry go round speed.....oh-oh!

[ColdNoMore]

Common sense and decency dictates that there is an inherent problem with a law that allows someone to wander around, constantly looking for a confrontation...just so they can pull their gun and shoot/kill someone. :ohdear:


While CC and open carry are a bit different, I think the general mentality are similar...and this sums it up pretty well.

http://i.pinimg.com/originals/bc/23/2f/bc232fd492c725f109290180d43e00ef.jpg

[ColdNoMore]

Minimal force = one shot!
Maybe for some, lawyers, etc.
To me and many others minimal.......MINIMAL.....force does not include an action that can result in death.......

We all know how the law/ legal system works......
Use
Abuse
Or hide behind

The letter of the law.

MINIMAL and death do not go in the same sentence.

Quoting a legal interpretation does not make it right.

I wonder how a lawyer would explain to a family member of the deceased how a LETHAL result, in this case the death of another person was the acceptable use of minimal response??

To each his own.

This thread is approaching "minimal" merry go round speed.....oh-oh!

:BigApplause:...:BigApplause:...:BigApplause:

[retiredguy123]

I have to admit that I don't understand the viagra cartoon.

[Steve9930]

So to all those that think no one should not defend themselves, that its OK for a thug to beat the living daylights out of you, that you are willing to allow your family to be subjected to some one else's horror perpetrated against you. good luck with that approach. Just because some one has a CCW does not mean they are going out of their way to find a problem. As for me I will exercise my constitutional right to protect me and my family. if that means I have to pull a trigger on a gun, so be it.

[retiredguy123]

So to all those that think no one should not defend themselves, that its OK for a thug to beat the living daylights out of you, that you are willing to allow your family to be subjected to some one else's horror perpetrated against you. good luck with that approach. Just because some one has a CCW does not mean they are going out of their way to find a problem. As for me I will exercise my constitutional right to protect me and my family. if that means I have to pull a trigger on a gun, so be it.
I agree. Why carry a gun if you can't shoot someone who attacks you? I still don't understand the viagra cartoon. Is there supposed to be some humor there?

[Steve9930]

I agree. Why carry a gun if you can't shoot someone who attacks you?

In that case a rock would be cheaper. It just amazes me how some one can defend a thug who gets shot and dies. As if nice words are going to make the evil go away. I had to face this type of a situation about two years ago. I thank God I had the pistol with me. I also thank God I did not have to pull the trigger. The pistol itself did the trick. That may be the only time in my life where the pistol sees the light of day in a confrontation. I pray it is because its not pleasant to know one more move and some gets shot. My wife used to always say to me "you really think you need that?" She does not say that any more.

[dewilson58]

In that case a rock would be cheaper. It just amazes me how some one can defend a thug who gets shot and dies. As if nice words are going to make the evil go away. I had to face this type of a situation about two years ago. I thank God I had the pistol with me. I also thank God I did not have to pull the trigger. The pistol itself did the trick. That may be the only time in my life where the pistol sees the light of day in a confrontation. I pray it is because its not pleasant to know one more move and some gets shot. My wife used to always say to me "you really think you need that?" She does not say that any more.

My Bride went thru the same process. Hate to say it, but she worries the most at church and movies.

[Steve9930]

My Bride went thru the same process. Hate to say it, but she worries the most at church and movies.

We live in a different world today. Nothing is sacred. Everything is fair game. You never know when evil will strike you just prepare the best you can.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Minimal force = one shot!
Maybe for some, lawyers, etc.
To me and many others minimal.......MINIMAL.....force does not include an action that can result in death.......

We all know how the law/ legal system works......
Use
Abuse
Or hide behind

The letter of the law.

MINIMAL and death do not go in the same sentence.

Quoting a legal interpretation does not make it right.

I wonder how a lawyer would explain to a family member of the deceased how a LETHAL result, in this case the death of another person was the acceptable use of minimal response??

To each his own.

This thread is approaching "minimal" merry go round speed.....oh-oh!

The term is minimum LETHAL force. In other words, just enough force to kill someone but no more. It's possible that in some instances a person might survive minimal lethal force.

If a person is attacked and feels that their life is in jeopardy, they may shoot their attacker. If that stops the attack, then they must stop shooting. If the attacker is lying on the ground and the threat has obviously been stopped then the shooting must cease.

If in that example the shooter got up and shot the attacker while he was lying on the ground it would be considered excessive lethal force.

[Steve9930]

The term is minimum LETHAL force. In other words, just enough force to kill someone but no more. It's possible that in some instances a person might survive minimal lethal force.

If a person is attacked and feels that their life is in jeopardy, they may shoot their attacker. If that stops the attack, then they must stop shooting. If the attacker is lying on the ground and the threat has obviously been stopped then the shooting must cease.

If in that example the shooter got up and shot the attacker while he was lying on the ground it would be considered excessive lethal force.

Very well said. I remember reading an article that in many cases a person will survive being shot. To many people watch two many movies where the person shot immediately falls to the ground and is incapacitated. The video of this shooting shows real life. The officers did a good job on the investigation and the shooter was lucky it was all caught on video.

[dewilson58]

Very well said. I remember reading an article that in many cases a person will survive being shot. To many people watch two many movies where the person shot immediately falls to the ground and is incapacitated. The video of this shooting shows real life. The officers did a good job on the investigation and the shooter was lucky it was all caught on video.

In a lot of Police shootings, the officer almost empty their pistol, rapid fire until the perp is on the ground. Very difficult to fire once and see if that worked.

[manaboutown]

In a lot of Police shootings, the officer almost empty their pistol, rapid fire until the perp is on the ground. Very difficult to fire once and see if that worked.

Three officers shot 18 rounds, unfortunately also hitting the hostage who was apparently getting her throat cut by the man with the very long kitchen knife. LAPD releases video of fatal police shooting of female hostage held at knifepoint | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/08/01/lapd-releases-video-fatal-police-shooting-female-hostage-held-at-knifepoint.html)