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.
Best to fight words with words.....
Once it gets physical the gloves come off.
Some are raised to be passive and will coward.
Some are taught to confront violence, with as much violence as they can possibly wield. People are armed in the USA.
Pick your battles wisely and think if it is a good day to die, before you lose all self control and lay hands on another.
But is it a good day to be crippled for the rest of your life, and dependent on a colostomy bag for several decades?
I get where you're coming from on the first point. I'm calling him a pita because that's the way people are describing him in the thread as they try and justify why this happened. While I'm not fond of people who get into everybody's business, and that's the way it sounds in the article, that's no excuse to get physical with him, as far as I'm concerned.
You're right, I have no idea what was going through his mind, but shouldn't training give people a better handle on how to read the situation? The idiot started stepping back as soon as he saw the guy on the ground reaching for something. I think he knew what was coming at that point. It all could have ended there.
But as you say, it's all Monday morning quarterbacking on my part.
Training?
You're given the laws in a booklet when you get your CCW permit.
It is your responsibility to know the laws and live by them.
You can take all sorts of training classes. And they will all inform you of the law, and when and how to apply it.
The onus and responsibility is of you, the individual to know the law. For some it's a wacky idea. Especially if they live in states without stand your ground where you are dependent upon police.
Your job is to know the law, and the onus is on you, the resident of Florida to decide whether force or deadly force, or the threat of either force are necessary. I posted the law.
776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.—
(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.
Did he reasonably believe the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent death or prevent great bodily harm?
What defines reasonably?
Not the state. There's no subsection of definitions for what constitutes as "reasonable" so the onus is on you, the resident of Florida. Should it be questioned, then it is upon you to make your case with the state and should it be appealed, the state of Florida decides whether you acted reasonably or not.
Now one can argue, dude that got shoved, provoked it for approaching someone, could even say was looking for an excuse... if that is the case, he will be before a judge.
Training?
You're given the laws in a booklet when you get your CCW permit.
It is your responsibility to know the laws and live by them.
You can take all sorts of training classes. And they will all inform you of the law, and when and how to apply it.
The onus and responsibility is of you, the individual to know the law. For some it's a wacky idea. Especially if they live in states without stand your ground where you are dependent upon police.
Your job is to know the law, and the onus is on you, the resident of Florida to decide whether force or deadly force, or the threat of either force are necessary. I posted the law.
776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.—
(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.
Did he reasonably believe the use of deadly force was necessary to prevent imminent death or prevent great bodily harm?
What defines reasonably?
Not the state. There's no subsection of definitions for what constitutes as "reasonable" so the onus is on you, the resident of Florida. Should it be questioned, then it is upon you to make your case with the state and should it be appealed, the state of Florida decides whether you acted reasonably or not.
Now one can argue, dude that got shoved, provoked it for approaching someone, could even say was looking for an excuse... if that is the case, he will be before a judge.
They've already said they're considering it self defense.
Which flys in the face of the law. The guy that got shot started backing off once the gun came out. It was a short period but it was also a long enough period that the guy with the gun saw he started to back away but still decided to fire.
Should be booking the guy with the gun for second degree murder.
If it was really all about the handicapped parking space he would have taken the plate down and relayed that info to the police.
To the people saying he should have called the police, you guys think they would have gotten there before the couple left? Take the plate down? You think the LEOs would have tracked the car down and wrote a ticket after the fact?
They've already said they're considering it self defense.
Which flys in the face of the law.
How does it fly in the face of the law? Read it again. The decision is for the guy on the ground to decide. UNLESS the attacker turns and runs. Turn your back to the guy with the gun and he shoots, now it's murder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LordSquidworth
The guy that got shot started backing off once the gun came out. It was a short period but it was also a long enough period that the guy with the gun saw he started to back away but still decided to fire.
Should be booking the guy with the gun for second degree murder.
If he turned his back.
If you shoot someone in their back in this state, it is murder. UNLESS as they were fleeing/retreating they were actively committing a forcible felony or were returning fire as they were running.
Every instructor and even sheriff's deputies I shoot with, will tell you the same thing, you can not claim stand your ground and shoot someone in the back unless they were returning fire as they fled OR were actively engaged in a forcible felony, say an active shooter. You can pop them in the back as many times as you deem reasonable.
Here. Read it again only this time I will leave in only what matters.
776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.—
(2) A person is justified in using deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself. A person who uses 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.
It was the shooters call to determine what is reasonable to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.
Just because someone backs up doesn't mean anything.
You could pull a gun on me and I back up I just may j hook and hoof you in the teeth and beat you half to death with your pistol. Don't say that wouldn't happen. Take a force on force class some time. You'd be surprised what humdingers they'll throw at you.
Hell you could have even suffered great bodily harm if I slammed you into the ground, say a fractured pelvis or broken collar bone, or broken rib and punctured lung, fractured vertebrae. Either way you'd be cleared of murder. Unless I turned my back. Then it's murder.
That's the point of stand your ground.
When seconds matter help is minutes away, you are responsible for your safety and your actions/behavior...
Was the man engaged in criminal activity?
Was he in a place he had no right to be?
Did he act reasonably to believe that he stopped a threat of death or great bodily injury? That's for him to decide. Not me. Not you. I'm just pointing out the law.
If it is questionable, it will go to court. And then the state has to prove that he acted unreasonably.
To the people saying he should have called the police, you guys think they would have gotten there before the couple left? Take the plate down? You think the LEOs would have tracked the car down and wrote a ticket after the fact?
So if the Cops wouldn’t have been able to do anything about it WTF was he gonna do about it? NOTHING! He should have minded his own business, sitting lecturing them was not going to change anything. People need to learn how to go about their own day...something this trivial ended up in a father being killed in front of his kids. It’s a travesty...
So if the Cops wouldn’t have been able to do anything about it WTF was he gonna do about it? NOTHING! He should have minded his own business, sitting lecturing them was not going to change anything. People need to learn how to go about their own day...something this trivial ended up in a father being killed in front of his kids. It’s a travesty...
Trust me. A disabled person finding some able-bodied fool parked in a handicap spot is not trivial! Maybe he thought it might make the lady think next time before she parked in a handicap spot. The faather did not have to lay hands on some guy for talking.
To the people saying he should have called the police, you guys think they would have gotten there before the couple left? Take the plate down? You think the LEOs would have tracked the car down and wrote a ticket after the fact?
True. We do only have rear plates down here too... cops would have to go on a wild goose chase to find a make model color vehicle and verify the plate number.
So if the Cops wouldn’t have been able to do anything about it WTF was he gonna do about it? NOTHING! He should have minded his own business, sitting lecturing them was not going to change anything. People need to learn how to go about their own day...something this trivial ended up in a father being killed in front of his kids. It’s a travesty...
Bet they won't park in the handicapped spaces illegally...
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.
