[manaboutown]

Originally Posted by Trayderjoe

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by manaboutown

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

[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]

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?

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

[Spikearoni]

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?

point well made!

[Trayderjoe]

Originally Posted by Spikearoni

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Jazuela

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!

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Spikearoni

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]

Originally Posted by Jazuela

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.


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

[graciegirl]

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore

The data are in: Young people are definitely less racist than old people — Quartz


Facts matter.

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.