[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

[CFrance]

Originally Posted by 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.

The guy is 47, I believe.

[Trayderjoe]

Originally Posted by Spikearoni

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by CFrance

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?

[manaboutown]

Originally Posted by Trayderjoe

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)

[Trayderjoe]

Originally Posted by CFrance

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]

Originally Posted by manaboutown

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)

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]

Originally Posted by CFrance

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]

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore

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?

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.