Media is trying to say it's like the Zimmerman case?

OLDNEWBIE · Jul 26, 2013

CNN Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.comOther than black possibly unarmed teen vs non black, this time white man, how is it the same? At first glance shooter was wrong from the get go! Don't like the loud hip hop?, roll up your window. Why the extra shots and also firing at an escaping vehicle? The MSM might just have the racist they've been hoping for this time but are taking it a little slower.

Misterbill · Jul 27, 2013

acts mean nothing to the MSM. They could find 199 cases of lawful self-defense for every inalid claim and this would bolster their case. Its the MSM, expect lies before anything else.

Kevinkris · Jul 27, 2013

sounds justified but he really shouldnt have been shooting while they were running. florida does allow you to shoot at a retreating aggressor though.

drew · Jul 27, 2013

Misterbill said:
acts mean nothing to the MSM. They could find 199 cases of lawful self-defense for every inalid claim and this would bolster their case. Its the MSM, expect lies before anything else.

Especially when they helped perpetuate the lie. MSM media convicted the man before the trial. They should work for the National Enquirer.

OLDNEWBIE · Jul 27, 2013

drew said:
. They should work for the National Enquirer.

I've more respect for the The National Enquirer, They don't claim to be hard news but with John Edwards and some other political scandals they've been accurate and first to break the story. The MSM has been morphing into tabloid trash for a while now anyway. The only difference is MSM's blatant slant to the left.

OLDNEWBIE · Jul 27, 2013

Kevinkris said:
sounds justified but he really shouldnt have been shooting while they were running. florida does allow you to shoot at a retreating aggressor though.

Doesn't sound like any law I've heard of, are you sure? What's the reasoning behind that? Maybe if a crazed aggressor gives up on you and starts heading towards a daycare or something but revenge shots?

Kevinkris · Jul 27, 2013

i couldnt quote the law. i found out about it when my dad's cousin (sheriff's deputy) was talking about someone he arrested for shooting at a guy who was running from him after starting a fight in public. he was told by his supervisor he was released and was pressing charges for unlawful arrest. he explained it as when an aggressor threaten death or grievous bodily harm (justification for deadly force), you are permitted to end that person's life even if they surrender or retreat. the law was meant for those breaking into you home but a mistake in the draft allows it in all self defense situations.

this was maybe 7-8 years ago. it could be different now but i doubt it. the lawsuit failed because of the obscure law.

Misterbill · Jul 27, 2013

Kevinkris said:
he explained it as when an aggressor threaten death or grievous bodily harm (justification for deadly force), you are permitted to end that person's life even if they surrender or retreat.

No, you are not.

I can imagine a situation where someone who was ARMED temporarily retreated to get better shooting position where you'd be perfectly justified in shooting. But in general, if the threat stops being a threat, you can't continue to use deadly force.

if a guy comes into my shop and pulls a knife and demands money and I draw my sidearm, which causes him to immediately drop the knife and surrender, or run out of the shop, I can't shoot him.

Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy. If any one of those is missing, it's not a good shoot.

OLDNEWBIE · Jul 27, 2013

Misterbill said:
No, you are not.

I can imagine a situation where someone who was ARMED temporarily retreated to get better shooting position where you'd be perfectly justified in shooting. But in general, if the threat stops being a threat, you can't continue to use deadly force.

if a guy comes into my shop and pulls a knife and demands money and I draw my sidearm, which causes him to immediately drop the knife and surrender, or run out of the shop, I can't shoot him.

Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy. If any one of those is missing, it's not a good shoot.

I believe Cops are exempt as long as nobody is recording. :s0131:

Kevinkris · Jul 28, 2013

Misterbill said:
No, you are not.

I can imagine a situation where someone who was ARMED temporarily retreated to get better shooting position where you'd be perfectly justified in shooting. But in general, if the threat stops being a threat, you can't continue to use deadly force.

if a guy comes into my shop and pulls a knife and demands money and I draw my sidearm, which causes him to immediately drop the knife and surrender, or run out of the shop, I can't shoot him.

Ability, Opportunity, Jeopardy. If any one of those is missing, it's not a good shoot.

just how it was explained to me based on an event that happened. i dont think that he would make it up.

Misterbill · Jul 28, 2013

Kevinkris said:
just how it was explained to me based on an event that happened. i dont think that he would make it up.

I believe you. I just think there's probably more to the story. Nuances can make the difference between a good shoot and murder. Also, LEOs typically have some of the WORST understanding of self-defense law out there. You would not BELIEVE some of the BS that cops tell people. I hear about it all the time from my students.

It also depends on the jurisdiction. I can tell you that in Yakima County, I've seen several cases of deadly force being employed where the shooter could easily have been prosecuted but the Prosecuting Attorney declined to press charges. It happens. That doesn't mean the shooters were right, it means the PA in the jurisdiction thought he would a) probably lose the case via jury nullification and/or b) that it would tick off likely voters in a very gun-friendly conservative area.