[ThirdOfFive]

For the umpteenth time, whether or not the person who was shot had a gun at the time he was shot means NOTHING. All that matters is that the person who shot him had REASONABLE CAUSE to believe that he had a gun and was going to use it to injure or kill people. And everything that happened up to the time the guy was shot, certainly points to that.

People who comment on the law might try to understand it first.

[Rainger99]

As I stated previously, about 90% of this thread is conjecture. Some people want it to be self defense and others want it to be murder.

Let's wait for the facts to come out. Remember the Ferguson case? Some people claimed that the police killed an innocent man who had his hands up. Others claimed that Brown was attacking a police officer.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by Get real

Maybe it was a 9mm cell phone. jeez

Which some Good Samaritan stole after the victim was shot dead.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

For the umpteenth time, whether or not the person who was shot had a gun at the time he was shot means NOTHING. All that matters is that the person who shot him had REASONABLE CAUSE to believe that he had a gun and was going to use it to injure or kill people. And everything that happened up to the time the guy was shot, certainly points to that.

People who comment on the law might try to understand it first.

I disagree. We do not know enough facts.

Someone is dead. And I do not see a reasonable cause here to kill another person. How does the shooter even know who was shooting outside of Applebee's? Where was the killer sitting and how far was that from the victim? The victim is the murdered man.

And I have a law degree from the U of MN. Class of 1989. The current Attorney General of MN is Class of 1990.


We did go over how FACTs were important in cases. An angry man walks into Applebee's carrying a gun in his hand. That is reasonable cause.

[JGibson]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

For the umpteenth time, whether or not the person who was shot had a gun at the time he was shot means NOTHING. All that matters is that the person who shot him had REASONABLE CAUSE to believe that he had a gun and was going to use it to injure or kill people. And everything that happened up to the time the guy was shot, certainly points to that.

People who comment on the law might try to understand it first.

Did the guy who shot him see the man shoot a gun outside?

That might be the only reasonable argument that may stand up.

You just can't shoot every person who reaches into there pants.

Also the law doesn't say reasonable it says imminent danger.

Was the guy in imminent danger?

Just release the video so us TOTV lawyers can decide.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by JGibson

Did the guy who shot him see the man shoot a gun outside?

That might be the only reasonable argument that may stand up.

You just can't shoot every person who reaches into there pants.

Also the law doesn't say reasonable it says imminent danger.

Was the guy in imminent danger?

Just release the video so us TOTV lawyers can decide.

Just curious how this will play out and why the media has done next to nothing with it.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by JGibson

Did the guy who shot him see the man shoot a gun outside?

That might be the only reasonable argument that may stand up.

You just can't shoot every person who reaches into there pants.

Also the law doesn't say reasonable it says imminent danger.

Was the guy in imminent danger?

Just release the video so us TOTV lawyers can decide.

Good questions. You see a guy running into a bar with an assault type weapon. Probably would create imminent danger in almost any situation.

[PugMom]

this is an example of a very good thread. so many points & opinions expressed in a consistent manner.

[fdpaq0580]

[QUOTE=JGibson;2202465

Was the guy in imminent danger? [/QUOTE]

Even if the "now deceased" had gun in hand pointing at the "shooter" and was threatening to kill, it can still be argued that he, the "now deceased",was simply frightening and never would have killed anyone, or that the gun was empty, or, or, etc, and therefore the "shooter" was actually never in imminent danger. That being said leads me to think one (the shooter) is guilty because he was pro-active (shot first) instead of reactive (waited to be shot before he could return fire). Is that what is being argued here?
Still waiting for all the facts to be determined. Still, if being the first to use your weapon against a perceived threat (pro-active) makes you guilty in every instance, (and even the worst lawyer can play "what if" for weeks on end), then a lot of folks who bought weapons for protection better practice duck and cover before ever drawing their gun.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Good questions. You see a guy running into a bar with an assault type weapon. Probably would create imminent danger in almost any situation.

Now, now! Don't jump to conclusions. Could be a guy with a super-soaker squirtgun who thought he saw an open flame and came in to put the fire out. Might actually be ao danger whatsoever. Best to just ignore him and he'll leave when he's done.

[JGibson]

Originally Posted by fdpaq0580

Even if the "now deceased" had gun in hand pointing at the "shooter" and was threatening to kill, it can still be argued that he, the "now deceased",was simply frightening and never would have killed anyone, or that the gun was empty, or, or, etc, and therefore the "shooter" was actually never in imminent danger. That being said leads me to think one (the shooter) is guilty because he was pro-active (shot first) instead of reactive (waited to be shot before he could return fire). Is that what is being argued here?
Still waiting for all the facts to be determined. Still, if being the first to use your weapon against a perceived threat (pro-active) makes you guilty in every instance, (and even the worst lawyer can play "what if" for weeks on end), then a lot of folks who bought weapons for protection better practice duck and cover before ever drawing their gun.

My understanding of the law is if a person points a gun at you it doesn't matter if he says nothing it is assumed he is going to pull the trigger.

The law realizes you don't have to wait to be shot at and possibly killed before you can pull the trigger.

Pointing a gun at anyone is playing stupid games and gonna win stupid prizes like your life.

[fdpaq0580]

Originally Posted by JGibson

My understanding of the law is if a person points a gun at you it doesn't matter if he says nothing it is assumed he is going to pull the trigger.

The law realizes you don't have to wait to be shot at and possibly killed before you can pull the trigger.

Pointing a gun at anyone is playing stupid games and gonna win stupid prizes like your life.

I agree with you, but it sounds like a lot of folks are arguing against the shooter.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

Florida is "stand your ground". He had no obligation to flee.

In my opinion - a reasonable person would flee. I have no obligation to do a lot of things that I do anyway, because I consider myself to be a reasonable person.

Like - if someone abandons their shopping cart on a windy day in the parking lot and I see it rolling fast toward a car - and in that split second I estimate that I can reach that cart and stop it without breaking my stride or detouring - I'll go ahead and stop the cart from rolling into someone's car. Because I'm reasonable. I have no obligation to do that, but I'll do it anyway.

[Taltarzac725]

https://www.meltzerandbell.com/news/...oes-it-entail/

This is interesting. I have not checked it for a while but Findlaw used to have a lot of interesting discussions on law as do various law professors.

Florida Second Degree Murder Laws - FindLaw

Law Professor Blog Network

[JMintzer]

Originally Posted by Bill14564

If you are incapable of determining if you see a gun then you sure as h*** shouldn't be shooting anyone.




Apparently, you and I have a different idea of what a reasonable person would think....and a different comfort level with the killing of an unarmed individual.

You are still assuming that the deceased was unarmed...

And one does not need to see a gun to have their life be threatened...