[Trayderjoe]

Originally Posted by Marathon Man

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.

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.

[Daddymac]

Originally Posted by Jazuela

1. The "pusher" backed up, physically, away from "ground guy" after shoving the guy.
2. Assuming the "ground guy" felt threatened (which would be understandable) there is still no reason to KILL the pusher. Ground guy was on the ground. Ground guy could've shot the pusher in the foot. Or leg. Or arm. Or hip, or shoulder. It was a big looking pusher, and they were close range. Not much chance to miss. Ground guy chose a death shot. Ground guy committed murder, not self-defense. Cops chose not to allow charges to be pressed.

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

[dewilson58]

Sheriff held a very clear press conference.

Complicated law, but he walked thru the legal steps.

[CFrance]

[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.

[Topspinmo]

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.

[JP]

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.

[Steve9930]

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.

[billethkid]

Originally Posted by Steve9930

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!!

[CFrance]

Originally Posted by Steve9930

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.

There's an oxymoron...

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

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.

[dewilson58]

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr

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.

"One an attacker is retreating, it seems to me that shooting is justified."

Is that what you meant to type??

[BobnBev]

If the prosecutor decides NOT to file charges, and upholds the SYG law, then there will be no civil suit. That's in the law.

[dewilson58]

Originally Posted by BobnBev

If the prosecutor decides NOT to file charges, and upholds the SYG law, then there will be no civil suit. That's in the law.

Really?? Hmmmm.

[CFrance]

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr

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.

These two statements seem contradictory. Did you leave a word out of the second statement, or...?

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Originally Posted by dewilson58

"One an attacker is retreating, it seems to me that shooting is justified."

Is that what you meant to type??

No, obviously a typographical error.

What I meant to type is, "Once an attacker is retreating, it seems to me that shooting is unjustified."

Thanks for pointing that out.