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.
And this wasn't a situation like say Zimmerman-Martin where it was a tussle. A man was pushed/"bodyslam" to the ground and then the gun was drawn, the pusher backed away .
He moved just far enough away to wind up for a kick.
Yes but does a push to the ground constitute a gun being drawn? That is the question. As I stated above, this wasn't a tussle between two people but rather a one punch fight resulting in gunfire. The use of stand your ground should be a last resort to a situation, not the first response to an assailant.
2. The shooter wasn't assaulting the girlfriend. Read the Florida Assault law 784.011. No prosecutor would ever charge the shooter with assaulting the woman because getting out of the car doesn't logically fit with what would have to be going on with the potential 'victim' re that statute.
He didn't know it was only going to be a push to the ground. As I stated earlier on in this thread, I watched that moment repeatedly. It was clear that the handicap parking space police guy was totally blindsided by that shove to the ground. He didn't see it coming.
It is very easy for us, outside of the situation, to observe a video over and over and come to all kinds of conclusions, but in real time, the shooter knew that one second he was complaining to the lady about parking in a handicap spot when she's clearly not handicapped, and the next second, a blur comes up to him and shoves him pretty hard to the ground, then stands over him. That is a threat. He has no idea what that person is going to do, and he already initiated violence on him, so it absolutely was a threat.
The question is not "does a shove deserve shooting at someone", the question is: Did the shooter notice the other back off? That's it. Did he think the threat was still there, or did he notice the other person take a step back and then another step back.
In my post I'm referring to, I suggested that he did have enough time to see that the person did step back again after the first time.
But there's too many emotions from some people on this. You cannot convict based on your emotions, you have to convict based on evidence. What you think is morally right or wrong is not how you should judge this person when considering a prison sentence.
The ONLY question is: Did the shooter still feel threatened when he fired?
That is it. Nothing else matters. The law doesn't have feelings.
Were I on the jury, I would lean more towards convicting him because I believe that he had enough time to see the person back off. Even if he missed the first step back the other person took, he did have time to see the person step back again.
Having said that, and I repeat myself from my post: We have no audio recording. We have no idea what is being said during this confrontation. We have no idea if the other person is threatening him, if the lady is saying something to the shooter that might give the shooter a reason to continue to fear for his safety. We may never know.
So to state: "Shoving someone doesn't deserve being shot", is pointless. HE didn't know it was ONLY a shove at that time. YOU wouldn't know it was ONLY a shove at that time, especially if you didn't even see it coming. You would feel threatened that out of the blue, some huge blur of a person has shoved you to the ground and is now standing over you. That's all that you would know right then and there when you decide to pull out your weapon to defend yourself.
The focus should be on the moment AFTER he pulled out the gun. Did he see the person take a step back. I think he did have the time. Further, again, what words were being exchanged during all of this?
Until we have those answers, NONE of us can say he should or should not go to prison.
And from the Sheriff's initial statement to the media, it sounded as though the Sheriff didn't disbelieve that claim by the shooter.
If the shooter were to be charged, I imagine a defense attorney would be able to play that media statement in court.
And this wasn't a situation like say Zimmerman-Martin where it was a tussle. A man was pushed/"bodyslam" to the ground and then the gun was drawn, the pusher backed away but was shot regardless. Add in his history of flashing his gun and I would say it is pretty clear for a slam dunk Man-1 guilty, not murder-2.
Well, so far he hasn't been arrested/charged with anything. Or do you think they'll wait until fall?
See, if you actually read through the thread you would understand that it's not quite cut and dry as you're portraying.
Yes but does a push to the ground constitute a gun being drawn? That is the question. As I stated above, this wasn't a tussle between two people but rather a one punch fight resulting in gunfire. The use of stand your ground should be a last resort to a situation, not the first response to an assailant.
I don’t think so. I could see how it could be perceived as dangerous, but I think this guy was too quick to pull the trigger. He gave the other guy no time to even back away. If nothing happens to him, that will be a crying shame.
Last edited by katygirl68; 07-31-2018 at 04:09 PM..
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.
