- Messages
- 85
- Reactions
- 66
Regardless of its legality I suspect the shooter will be bankrupted in a civil court case where the burden of proof is much lower, and likely have his wages garnished for eternity.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The whole concept of innocent until proven guilty.... where does that fall into this situation?
I was only pointing out Florida's process for a Self Defense Immunity Hearing and giving the legal background to why the Sheriff did not arrest him.
You can guarantee that will happen..........all the usual suspects are already saying what a "good guy" the deceased was........criminal exoneration isn't enough these days........there will be many lawyers trying to make a name by destroying the guy and the video will help them. I have been taking and teaching deadly force classes for nearly 50 years. I would like to see the enhanced video but the shooter looks wrong in what I can see. Pretty tough to argue being afraid for your life when the assailant appears to be finished and moving away. The shooter has permintly altered his own life by committing a questionable shooting, on video tape Whether he gets a criminal conviction or not.Regardless of its legality I suspect the shooter will be bankrupted in a civil court case where the burden of proof is much lower, and likely have his wages garnished for eternity.
From the video, he soaked up the shot pretty well........then went back into the store and likely bled out. I Doubt it was a 45, the terminal energy of a 45 usually produces more of a reaction than he exhibited. probably something like a 380. 22's kill more people than any other caliber (they make great assasin's guns) but the actual goal of a self defense shooter is to disable, not nessisary to kill. They won't say for a while.Hey, 47 is not old. With a shot placement in the heart, he could have used a 22LR.
From the video, he soaked up the shot pretty well........then went back into the store and likely bled out.
I don't think we were giving the pusher a free pass. He is clearly the one who chose to use physical violence. In my mind he bears primary responsibility for his own death. That wasn't just a little push, either. It was more like a martial arts move. If the recipient had landed differently, that push could have killed him. It was, in my view, potentially lethal force. However, the pusher is dead. Grievious was his fault, and grieviously has he paid for it. He's beyond society's ability to punish.But apparently the guy who comes out of the store and very violently shoved the shooter gets a free pass for initiating the physicality of the event.
Some people seem to forget that violence exists on a sliding spectrum and once you choose to get on the slide, you aren't always in control of how far you'll end up on the spectrum.
A justified shooting requires several elements. The perp was a bad guy.....no one is arguing that but the elements of justification seem lacking.......that is all anyone has said here. You can't shoot someone after the threat has dissipated no matter how amped up you are. It simply doesn't pass the rules for use of deadly force. Even if the victim was injured in the fall.......as soon as the guy stoped the attack and moved back, the deadly force justification is gone. That is what the video illustrates to me. I suppose if threats were still being verbally exchanged it could raise to a legitimate deadly force situation but a court will have to decide that. .........Oldbroad..........where have you been my entire life......you are wonderful.I don't think we were giving the pusher a free pass. He is clearly the one who chose to use physical violence. In my mind he bears primary responsibility for his own death. That wasn't just a little push, either. It was more like a martial arts move. If the recipient had landed differently, that push could have killed him. It was, in my view, potentially lethal force. However, the pusher is dead. Grievious was his fault, and grieviously has he paid for it. He's beyond society's ability to punish.
I think we are focusing on the shooter because he appears to have some degree of blame too. And how much is controversial and complicated. And the shooter is not beyond society's ability to punish.
It's been really interesting to see all the interpretations of the video. I must have watched it 30 times, and what I thought I saw was what you said--an attacker who had backed away. An attack that was over. Pusher even had a very relaxed unaggressive posture. Then he was shot. But we got to see things from only one angle, and the one that was probably least useful. We didn't get to see what the shooter saw. And as others pointed out, sound might have made a big difference to our understanding.A justified shooting requires several elements. The perp was a bad guy.....no one is arguing that but the elements of justification seem lacking.......that is all anyone has said here. You can't shoot someone after the threat has dissipated no matter how amped up you are. It simply doesn't pass the rules for use of deadly force. Even if the shooter was injured in the fall.......as soon as the guy stoped the attack and moved back, the deadly force justification is gone. That is what the video illustrates to me. I suppose if threats were still being verbally exchanged it could raise to a legitimate deadly force situation but a court will have to decide that. .........Oldbroad..........where have you been my entire life......you are wonderful.
Right. But we have been mostly talking about how this incident would be viewed if it had happened in the NW, and how we NW CHL holders view it, and what we think is actually right, not what the Florida law says.r'Stand Your Ground' Law Could Spare Florida Man From Charges in Fatal Shooting Over Parking Space
Hope this sheds some light on this. There are a lot of references to this. Go and look and be aware of the facts about the LAW of stand your ground in Florida.
Right. But we have been mostly talking about how this incident would be viewed if it had happened in the NW, and how we NW CHL holders view it, and what we think is actually right, not what the Florida law says.