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.

:wave:

:ho:

Wow!
 

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?

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.

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.

The Zimmerman case says other wise.

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:

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

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.

"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.

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.

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.