Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Again this is not a mitigating circumstance. His family/gf was under no physical threat. So stop with this narrative, it's insulting to everyone's intelligence.
Speak for yourself. You are not everyone. Many believe as I do - in fact, I think a majority.
Your opinion is welcome. Your evaluation of the mob....is best left for somewhere else.
Speak for yourself. You are not everyone. Many believe as I do - in fact, I think a majority.
Your opinion is welcome. Your evaluation of the mob....is best left for somewhere else.
This is not really up for majority consensus. This is cut and dry legal matter. Because someone is yelling at your gf doesn't allow you to shove them and it's not a mitigating circumstance.
As he says, the law shouldn't have two parts if you can use deadly force to counter non-deadly threats. A shove simply doesn't quality.
Sure, people have tripped and died from a shove. They also have tripped and hit their heads and died...but a reasonable person would likely look at the total circumstances like the "Conservative" National Review does.
As he says, the law shouldn't have two parts if you can use deadly force to counter non-deadly threats. A shove simply doesn't quality.
Sure, people have tripped and died from a shove. They also have tripped and hit their heads and died...but a reasonable person would likely look at the total circumstances like the "Conservative" National Review does.
You don't get to say what qualifies.
Just like I don't have a say in what qualifies.
That is for anyone who is attacked to say what qualifies.
Some folks keep bringing up that the business owner claims he was a menace.
If he was such a menace, he'd have been trespassed for harassing customers. And had he been back after being trespassed this would be murder as he was in a place he didn't rightfully belong.
As he says, the law shouldn't have two parts if you can use deadly force to counter non-deadly threats. A shove simply doesn't quality.
Sure, people have tripped and died from a shove. They also have tripped and hit their heads and died...but a reasonable person would likely look at the total circumstances like the "Conservative" National Review does.
Ok so he doesn't like it. But he's no lawyer, just some columnist who doesn't know what he's talking about.
Coincidentally, one of the house members who has expended SYG in Florida commented on this as well. Who do you think understands SYG better, one of the contributors or some random columnist who wrote a terribly infantile opinion piece?
Quote:
White, a Pensacola state House member and general counsel for a auto dealership chain, said the law exists "to ensure individuals have the right to protect themselves when attacked. Based on the video, I agree with the Sheriff's assessment … this man was attacked and he stood his ground to defend himself." In the House, "I was proud to co-sponsor legislation to strengthen our Stand Your Ground laws."
It is in Florida and many states. If you show or touch the weapon in any way, it's crime. But if you pull the weapon out and actually shoot someone with it, it's SYG.
"790.10 Improper exhibition of dangerous weapons or firearms.—If any person having or carrying any dirk, sword, sword cane, firearm, electric weapon or device, or other weapon shall, in the presence of one or more persons, exhibit the same in a rude, careless, angry, or threatening manner, not in necessary self-defense, the person so offending shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree ...."
As I read the law, it's not illegal to show the firearm in legitimate self-defense. You [and others] are actually saying that once you pull a firearm in self defense, it's a crime not to shoot. Think about that.
Don’t want to get shot? Don’t assault anyone. End of story.
Instead of committing a forcible felony by assaulting the guy by pushing him on the ground, he should have just said haters gonna hate, get in his car, and leave.
Anytime you assault someone, you’ve forfeited your right to life during the course of the assault.
You don't get to say what qualifies.
Just like I don't have a say in what qualifies.
That is for anyone who is attacked to say what qualifies.
Some folks keep bringing up that the business owner claims he was a menace.
If he was such a menace, he'd have been trespassed for harassing customers. And had he been back after being trespassed this would be murder as he was in a place he didn't rightfully belong.
Exactly. If they review this situation and find the shooter guilty of something, that's fine. But let's not fudge the facts and pretend that the physical assault he engaged in wasn't the reason this guy died. That was the only reason. The shooter had arguments with other people according to the article. Only one of them was shot - based on a physical assault that never should have happened.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
