Your still speculating and guessing.

The pusher could have been going back to the car and saying "quick, hand me my gun, I am going to kill this SOB" Shooter justified

The pusher could have been saying " I am so sorry, had me the first aid kit" Shooter should be arrested and tried.

The point is you are all guessing which ever side you take. You don't know all the facts. You may never know all the facts. Let the LEO and the DA who are handling this make that call based on what they know. It's what we pay them for.

If you are for or against SYG then rally support for your position based on your belief about the law as it is written, not looking at some video and guessing what happened.

The shooter MURDERED the man that shoved him. No aggression from the man that was shot after the shove. This is not a situation that should have resulted in a death. The shooter should be criminally charged.

Excellent post. AGAIN.
Your fan,
Grace Gantner

Those of you who believe that there was no aggression after the shove, please have another look at the video. After the shove, the pusher takes three steps forward directly toward the shooter. He stops and backs up as the shooter is pulling his weapon. Those three steps are enough to make the shooter believe that more action is coming. At that point SYG is in effect and it longer matters what actually could or would have happened next. SYG will be debated every time something like this happens.

As I have said before. I am not a fan of any of the three people involved in this. One simple change by any of them and nothing would have happened. Escalation led to an extreme outcome to a simple situation.

As stated above you're guessing. The pusher was aggressive. He pushed the man to the ground. Yes he was moving away. Do you know why? No you don't, nobody but the interviewing LEO has any idea.

Suppose as I suggested he was turning back to the car and asking his GF to hand him his gun? Was the shooter justified then?

I am at a total loss how folks can convict someone with so little information. You see a video and think you know exactly what happened. None of us do. Let the law take it's natural course. There has to be some reason why he was not charged immediately. I trust that the LEO knew what he was doing. And if not, I am sure the DA will correct the problem.

The aggressor was a physically abusive bully and suffered the consequences.

Someone should not die because they push a busy body that should have minded his own business. Surely SYG was meant for a more extreme situation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdNoMore View Post
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."

Quote:
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.
__________________
"Kindness is more important than wisdom, and the recognition of this is the beginning of wisdom."
-
Theodore Rubin

I am willing to take the jab about hypocrisy, since it appears the difference between commenting about behavior versus blatant name calling of people is lost on some people.

I reiterate that it is the job of the police and the prosecutor to review these cases and determine if the shooting was justifiable or not, and they will do so based upon all of the evidence collected. No one on this board gets to make that determination, unless there is a trial and we are on the jury. Beyond that, we all get our opinion, however without assessing all of the facts, an absolute finding of guilt on this board is premature. The vitriol that accompanies opinions only demonstrates an emotional attachment to a position, not a decision based upon facts.

Well said.

Quote:
Originally Posted by John_W View Post
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.

I disagree. The victim was unexpectedly assaulted and violently pushed to the ground. Since none of us know his physical condition (does he have bad knees, was he "woozy" from hitting his head on the ground, etc.), we don't know how long it would take him to stand up in order to flee the scene, and if in the act of standing up, he would be exposed to a further assault. Add in the Tueller Drill which proved that a person could move 21 feet in 1.5 seconds, the victim could easily have been attacked again. The victim had a legal right to be where he was and the Stand Your Ground Law removes the responsibility from him to escape. Even if we were in a Duty to Retreat state, that requirement is predicated on the victim being able to safely escape the situation before he would be required to retreat.

Once again, LAW ENFORCEMENT has the job to determine if the shooting was an act of self defense. The shooter will ALWAYS face the potential for criminal charges to be brought unless self defense is determined (by LAW ENFORCEMENT) to be justified.

Should he have taken it upon himself to yell at the people? No, not at all. His doing so was a stupid decision, the boyfriend, after violently shoving him to the ground, became a criminal once he assaulted the victim.

SYG only removes the requirement that if a person is somewhere he/she is legally allowed to be, he/she does not HAVE to escape even if it is safe to do so. It does NOT automatically give someone a "free pass" to shoot as the shooter will still have to meet the self defense requirements. 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

:popcorn:Boy, what wouldn't I give for a cold beer to go with my :popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

I got curious about Florida's self defense statute (stand your ground), looked it up and discovered it to be a very necessary, reasonable, proper and good law.

776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.—
(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.
(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.

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.

Zimmerman was acquitted at trial. He was also investigated for civil rights violations by the Department of Justice for three years after which the DOJ concluded there was not sufficient evidence that he intentionally violated the civil rights of Martin. Had Zimmerman committed a crime at the start, before he was attacked, he would not have been able to claim self defense and most likely convicted (can't give an absolute here since we don't know, so please don't suggest that he still would have been acquitted). I am curious as to why there is an insistence that Zimmerman committed a crime by people who were not at the scene or on the jury, when the judicial system has returned an innocent verdict based upon self defense?

I believe that most people who want to get rid of SYG don't understand what the law entails, nor do they understand the requirements that need to be met in order for a valid claim of self defense to be made. This may be due to jumping on the band wagon, or a lack of researching a subject before taking a stance one way or another. Remember, in order to claim self defense, you are admitting you killed someone. If your claim of self defense doesn't hold water, you have just admitted to murder.

A person may be a loudmouth, but under the law, no one has the right to put their hands on that individual because they don't like what was said or how it was said. If someone doesn't want to hear it, they have at least two legal choices: they can call the police and ask them to intervene or they can leave. It may not be convenient or fair to have to leave if that is the choice, but then there is no confrontation.

Wow..
Blind you are!
The “pusher” Should Not Have “pushed”
SIMPLE!!

Sheriff held a very clear press conference.

Complicated law, but he walked thru the legal steps.

[QUOTE=Trayderjoe;1566809]Zimmerman was acquitted at trial. He was also investigated for civil rights violations by the Department of Justice for three years after which the DOJ concluded there was not sufficient evidence that he intentionally violated the civil rights of Martin. Had Zimmerman committed a crime at the start, before he was attacked, he would not have been able to claim self defense and most likely convicted (can't give an absolute here since we don't know, so please don't suggest that he still would have been acquitted). I am curious as to why there is an insistence that Zimmerman committed a crime by people who were not at the scene or on the jury, when the judicial system has returned an innocent verdict based upon self defense?

I believe that most people who want to get rid of SYG don't understand what the law entails, nor do they understand the requirements that need to be met in order for a valid claim of self defense to be made. This may be due to jumping on the band wagon, or a lack of researching a subject before taking a stance one way or another. Remember, in order to claim self defense, you are admitting you killed someone. If your claim of self defense doesn't hold water, you have just admitted to murder.

A person may be a loudmouth, but under the law, no one has the right to put their hands on that individual because they don't like what was said or how it was said. If someone doesn't want to hear it, they have at least two legal choices: they can call the police and ask them to intervene or they can leave. It may not be convenient or fair to have to leave if that is the choice, but then there is no confrontation.[/QUOTE]

As much as I normally disagree with you on things, your [B] makes sense. As I said in my original post, most of us a) wouldn't park illegally in a handicapped space, and b) wouldn't react violently to the loudmouth. The happenings here were wrong from the beginning to the end.

On the other hand, I don't think this anger-infused jackwagon should get away with murder. He probably will. But hopefully karma will take care of him the way it seems to have taken care of Zimmerman.

We see the video but don't know what was said? Here opinion that don't mean Shyt!

The shooter may of just walked up and said you can't park here without handicapped stickers? The attitude of the illegal law breaker could of went off on him. Now the guy comes out of store hears his mistress yelling? He rushes over shoved the with blast in the chest that sends him flying to ground several feet away? He hovers over him for seconds till he sees the gun come out in which he begains to have O **** monument and start retreat? The guy on ground thinks he going to get battered or worse so he pulls the trigger.

Opinions of what happen we all have them, (which don't mean Shyt, they are opinions based on our prejudices). So, bottom line none of use should pre- judge with our opinions what happen when we wasn't there or have ANY facts.

This thread should of been closed after the first day cause it as most controversial threads go off the deep end.

The guy that got shot was obviously a bully parked in a handicapped spot he shoudn't have been in. Does he deserve to be shot? Probably not but he was violating the law and than tried to bully the guy that shot him.

After watching the video the shooting was justified. I would have done the same. The pusher was aggressive and took an aggressive stance after he pushed the gentleman. No telling what the next move would have been. The shooter used minimum deadly force, fired once and the man backed away. The shooter never shot again. No criminal charges will be filed. However he should expect a civil suit. The reason you need Insurance if you carry a weapon.

So one shot that killed the man is minimum deadly force???? Really?
There is no such thing as minimum deadly force when one chooses to shoot another person, center of mass.

The man he shot died of the gun shot!!!!!!!!!!!

Minimal ????? Surely there is jesting intended.....that most certainly has no humor!!

There's an oxymoron...

I saw the guy that did the pushing back off once the guy was on the ground. Sometimes these things happen so fast that it's difficult to say exactly whether it was right or wrong.

It seemed to me that when the pusher began to back off, the guy on the ground should have held his fire.

Just because the police at the scene determined that this was a justified shooting it doesn't mean that criminal charges won't be pressed. A prosecutor may look at the video and have a different conclusion.

This is a tough one. It almost appears to me that the guy that did the shooting was looking to shoot someone. Based on the statements made by the store owner, he has caused problems before. It seems that he was looking for trouble.

The guy who pushed him was in the wrong to put his hands on him, but once he pushed him down, he seemed to back off. One an attacker is retreating, it seems to me that shooting is justified. I think a lot has to do with the timing and how fast things happened.

Those of us that carry have been trained that you shouldn't draw your gun unless you intend to shoot. A lot of people seem to think that means if you draw your gun, you have to shoot. The way I see it is that if you show your gun and the threat ends, you don't have a right to shoot.