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?

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.

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.

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:

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)

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

point well made!

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.

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:

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

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.

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.

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:

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.

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.

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!

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.

Psycho-babble
 

:rolleyes:barf:what::sigh:

Guns
 

Stupid is as Stupids Do!:boxing2:

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.

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:

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:

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.

:agree:

Street Smart varies from place to place.

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.

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. ;)