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.
Fun games here: what would you do if the same dumbass was screaming at your wife while you were in the store buying your son an ice cream ? A push/shove is entirely reasonable response - you can call it assault but a Jury might not agree. With the benefit of hindsight you know the person who instigated this whole confrontation is/was armed so it's easy to say don't push an armed angry middle aged guy with a chip on his shoulder.
Imagine what might happen if the father was armed and drew his weapon asking the HC Parking vigilante to step away. Would he have "stood his ground" and drawn his weapon ? Who would fire first and then who would be the one standing their ground ?
How is it you can be certain of your position when you don't even know what the legal definition of assault is?
Here is how it works. An attorney would provide the jury with the legal definition of assault, and state that by shoving the shooter, he physically assaulted him by law. The other attorney would not be able to dispute that.
There's no debating this in court. You don't get to cherry pick, edit, or deny laws.
A group of us are arguing this side of it based on law. The rest of you are coming up with nonsense.
Agreed. This isn't middle school anymore. Fighting never leads to anything but a criminal record, fine, and court date where you have to beg the judge to just give you community service. And that's after waiting like 2-3 hours in line for everyone else who also thought fighting was a good idea.
The laws are very clear, you must be in fear of your life or in self-defense to legally put your hands on someone without charges.
Anyone who says that if they were in a position where some guy just blindsided them and knocked them down, and the reality of 2 or 3 against 1 went through their minds, that they wouldn't be in fear.
I think the shooter was acting out of anger, rather than fear -not that it would change anything, as both are justifiable responses.
More likely alarm than either anger or fear.
If he has been properly trained in the civilian use of firearms for self defense, contrary to popular belief, he would not merely draw his firearm and wait to see what happens next.
If he were truly in fear of his life--and this is how it gets argued in court--he must perceive the situation as so critical that he must draw and fire as quickly as he can get an accurate "sight picture." If he can afford to draw and wait, then it wasn't critical enough to draw at all.
That's why so many states have anti-brandishing laws, because it's legally presumed that if one has time to brandish, then it's not really a critical situation.
How is it you can be certain of your position when you don't even know what the legal definition of assault is?
Here is how it works. An attorney would provide the jury with the legal definition of assault, and state that by shoving the shooter, he physically assaulted him by law. The other attorney would not be able to dispute that.
There's no debating this in court. You don't get to cherry pick, edit, or deny laws.
A group of us are arguing this side of it based on law. The rest of you are coming up with nonsense.
I went to a number of other threads about stuff I didn't care about and repped a lot of people so I could come back and rep you on this.
If the pusher and his girlfriend then got into their car and started to leave, and the pushed ran to them and shot dead one or the other - would that be a justified kill under Florida SYG law?
Fun games here: what would you do if the same dumbass was screaming at your wife while you were in the store buying your son an ice cream ?
I would not commit assault. I would come out and ask what the dumbass was screaming about.
Quote:
Imagine what might happen if the father was armed and drew his weapon asking the HC Parking vigilante to step away. Would he have "stood his ground" and drawn his weapon ? Who would fire first and then who would be the one standing their ground ?
You can only legally draw the weapon in self defense. So "the father" would have been committing a crime if he did that.
Fun games here: what would you do if the same dumbass was screaming at your wife while you were in the store buying your son an ice cream ? A push/shove is entirely reasonable response - you can call it assault but a Jury might not agree. With the benefit of hindsight you know the person who instigated this whole confrontation is/was armed so it's easy to say don't push an armed angry middle aged guy with a chip on his shoulder.
I've already answered that question in this thread. I'd have walked up, stepped between the car and the lot vigilante, and said, "Hey, dude, step back from the car. What's going on here?"
I would not have laid hands on the guy, because I don't go straight to violence to solve my problems.
Quote:
Imagine what might happen if the father was armed and drew his weapon asking the HC Parking vigilante to step away. Would he have "stood his ground" and drawn his weapon ? Who would fire first and then who would be the one standing their ground ?
But that's not what happened.
Imagine if Martians came down and said, "We claim this planet for Mars" and the lot vigilante shot them all dead.
But that didn't happen either. See, anyone can think up stupid stuff.
How is it you can be certain of your position when you don't even know what the legal definition of assault is?
Here is how it works. An attorney would provide the jury with the legal definition of assault, and state that by shoving the shooter, he physically assaulted him by law. The other attorney would not be able to dispute that.
There's no debating this in court. You don't get to cherry pick, edit, or deny laws.
A group of us are arguing this side of it based on law. The rest of you are coming up with nonsense.
The shover's lawyer would argue his client reasonably believed the angry man harassing his girlfriend was about to use unlawful force against her or his children so he used non-deadly force against him. Sound familiar ? Remember, we don't know just how bad the incident was described to the shover when he was in the store.
Speaking of nonsense, aren't you one of the posters tossing the guy exiting the store into the imaginary 3 vs 1 equation while you don't even know if the shooter noticed the guy.
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.
.