Thoughts? - ‘Stand your ground’ law protects shooter in deadly fight over parking spacev

[Caplock]

When you are carrying a gun you CAN NOT go around getting into a yelling match with people. As soon as any conflict escalated above normal level talk he should have went about his business.

Guy never put his arm out to break his fall. Biffed it pretty hard. I wouldn't be surprised if it knocked the wind out of him. Made one center mass shot that was fatal. I think it was a bad shoot but a good shot.

 

[jmr40]

I wouldn't have pulled the trigger. When the guy on the ground pulled his gun the attacker begins to retreat. I'd consider the threat over at that point.

 

[Swifty Morgan]

I don't consider George Zimmerman a "vigilante." The cops recruited and trained him as a neighborhood watch volunteer. He did nothing illegal. He simply followed a suspicious stranger so he could lead the cops to him. A dispatcher advised him that the cops didn't "need" him to follow Martin, but the dispatcher was not a cop, and even if he had been, he would not have had the legal authority to tell Zimmerman not to follow Martin.

Angela Corey and the other state's attorneys perjured themselves in order to charge Zimmerman. I commented on that at the time, and then Alan Dershowitz issued an opinion in which he said the same thing. Zimmerman may be nuts (now), but he got screwed.

I don't blame him if he's maladjusted and crazy today. What he went through was like a Kafka story. His own government--the people he counted on to look out for him--tried to disappear him for political reasons. His parents, who were not involved with the shooting, had to move because leftist celebrities posted their address on the web. They feared for their lives. The government was no help at all. Wouldn't that make anyone a little bitter?

 

[Steve S.]

“Stand Your Groud” or any “law” does not give anyone the right to shoot another person; if you can leave, talk your way out if it, back away, be humble, apologize, hide ..... anything ..... is all a better way to skirt the use of deadly force than pulling the trigger. You have to be absolutely sure in your mind that all of your other choices (even eating crow or ego pain) were exhausted and you had no other option but to take that life to preserve another. The macho/ bada$$, temper, pride, anger approach does not sell well to a jury nor is it ever a good reason to shoot another human; a genuine need to preserve life with the use of a weapon is a very absolute last resort - and so it should be final step.

 

[dh1633pm]

I watched the video. It wasn't me and I wasn't there. It looked like he wanted trouble in the past and was looking again for it. Found it and killed a man. Might be found innocent by a jury, but not by me. But that's just from looking at a video. Like I said, wasn't there.

 

[George P]

Stand Your Groud” or any “law” does not give anyone the right to shoot another person; if you can leave, talk your way out if it, back away, be humble, apologize, hide

Sorry, but the whole point of Stand Your Ground is so you are not forced to retreat and that you can defend yourself. Whether, in this particular case, it should have been applied, we don't know. We do not know who started escalating the shouting match between the man and the woman.

 

[G'dale Mike]

The press frequently will paint a shooting as a “stand your ground” issue, whether it is or not. I believe it is because they know this shooting looks bad, and they get to frame “stand your ground” in a negative light. It fits their agenda.

 

[BobTheTomato]

I had a few take aways. First, mind your own business. I suppose calling the police might have gotten him labeled parking space paul in the media. Second if you are arguing with someone the best option is to de-escalate things. If the guy coming out of the store had just said hey back off or hey your right we are a holes and were leaving everyone would have gone on with their lives.

 

[buck460XVR]

“Stand Your Groud” or any “law” does not give anyone the right to shoot another person; if you can leave, talk your way out if it, back away, be humble, apologize, hide ..... anything ..... is all a better way to skirt the use of deadly force than pulling the trigger. You have to be absolutely sure in your mind that all of your other choices (even eating crow or ego pain) were exhausted and you had no other option but to take that life to preserve another. The macho/ bada$$, temper, pride, anger approach does not sell well to a jury nor is it ever a good reason to shoot another human; a genuine need to preserve life with the use of a weapon is a very absolute last resort - and so it should be final step.

Sorry, but the whole point of Stand Your Ground is so you are not forced to retreat and that you can defend yourself. Whether, in this particular case, it should have been applied, we don't know. We do not know who started escalating the shouting match between the man and the woman.

I have to agree with George P. The "stand your ground law" does give you the right to shoot another person......legally, within it's parameters. Without having to hide, or leave. Now morally, one can argue for running like a little girl, standing there and getting the crap beat out of you and maybe getting beaten to death, instead of pulling your gun, but that is not the law. One can also argue that the shooter put himself in then position of being harmed....but that in itself does not take away his right to defend himself with deadly force. One can legally initiate a verbal confrontation and still legally defend himself if and when the person they confronted verbally, turns the argument to a physical altercation. We do not know the whole story or all of the facts. As I said in my first post, there may have been words exchanged that may have led the shooter to fear for his life as much as the physical attack. Even the Lawyer in the linked article, while he says what he sees in the video does not warrant deadly force, suggests there is probably more to it.

I've always been under the impression that one does not draw a gun in self defense, unless they are going to pull the trigger. The shooter may have been disorientated, trying to take off the safety or just shaking badly, so the shot was not fired as he drew his weapon. That does not mean he did not fear for his life or great bodily harm. That is where the grey area is here, and "nearly two seconds" is not a long time to stop and think when you are under stress, have a much younger and stronger guy standing over you after he violently pushed you to the ground and is possibly verbally threatening you with more harm. Now, I don't advocate starting silly arguments over handicapped parking spots, even tho I have little or no respect for those dirtballs that think they are above that law. Nor do I advocate pulling a gun in scenarios where there really is no threat of great bodily harm to you or those around you. But I do strongly support Stand your Ground and Castle Doctrine, even tho they may give the advantage to the shooter(legally). I realize that mistakes will happen and folks will get off Scot free.

As for the civil charges. Where I live, if it has been decided you acted appropriately and within the law in a self defense shooting, you cannot be sued in civil court for damages. I seriously don't know why this is not true everywhere. Now, this does not mean that there won't be consequences for those that use deadly force to defend themselves.

 

[redneck2]

I’m 68 and have heart issues. If somebody hits me and knocks me down, I’m gonna assume they’re going to continue an attack.

I will respond accordingly

I will not lay on the ground simply hoping that he doesn’t kill me

 

[GEM]

It was a collision of two people who should have known better. An interesting take on the shooter is found in:
http://www.activeresponsetraining.net/the-summer-of-snitches

It relates more to police calls from 'guardians of the rules"

In every community, there is a significant minority of residents who are the self-appointed “guardians of the rules.” When a rule is broken, no matter how trivial, these people become outraged and call the police. It makes no difference if the rule breaker is not causing trouble for anyone. Just the fact that someone is breaking the rules makes these people incensed.

The article links to folks who are snitches over minor infractions. Police and citizens need to chill a bit. A child selling lemonade or a broken tail light - give it a rest.

For 'tactical' folks - you never know if you decide to spout off in a 'guardian of the rules' moment, whether the response will not make you happy.

 

[dh1633pm]

He was knocked on his butt. When the firearm was produced, he appeared to be backing up. I would have though problem over at that point. Yes, stand your ground allows you to not have to retreat and then be killed because of it. But shouldn't one do whats needed to at least attempt to defuse without backing up? "I am truly Sorry dude", "I will make my way now". Just because a law makes it legal doesn't always make it right.

I live in NY and carry is rare. One night I was enjoying a cold one and someone was making fun of my shirt. Drunk and obviously wanted to fight, well not fight, beat on someone. I am not going to take that bait. I apologized for my shirt and said I was going home to change it. In my pocket I had already flipped my knife to the on position. Sorry, got to do something to make it even. I backed out and headed on my way. Besides, I liked my shirt. Nice oxford too.

 

[imashooter]

I'm all for stand your ground laws. This particular case I don't know. The assailant comes out of nowhere and assaults the victim who is knocked to the ground. I don't know what they said but they appeared to exchange words while the victim is on the ground. The assailant appears to back away and the victim them shoots him. Maybe the assailant was threatening to assault him some more or something. I'm not sure the victim should have shot this guy.

No one wants to Monday Morning Quarterback but sometimes you need to learn from an experience.


What do you think?



https://nypost.com/2018/07/20/stand...r-in-deadly-fight-over-parking-space-sheriff/

I fully understand his shooting the guy and support his doing so. It did appear a decent possibility existed the shover was done and walking away, however, that's only speculation. This will be a strong test on Florida law as to taking it to a grand jury. This is about as fine a line as I have seen. The shooter appeared to me be one of those "get out of my yard" types. Though it has been said "no charges", it's up to the DA and the one deal I see which I assume is part of Florida law is to the effect, if an individual "initiates" the event or is unlawful during the event, he is no longer afforded those legal protections. In the future, don't park in spaces which are unauthorized for you to do so and don't confront people without realizing what the consequences might be.

 

[Kendahl]

Stand your ground state: You don't have to retreat from an assailant.
Duty to retreat state: You have to retreat but only if doing so is sure to save you.
Lying on the ground, with the guy who put you there looming over you, offers no opportunity to retreat.

Stand your ground is only one of the factors that determine the validity of a self defense decision. Did you pick the fight? Were you in danger at the instant you acted? Was the threat severe enough to justify your actions? Were they reasonable under the circumstances?

 

[JohnKSa]

I wouldn't call it a clearcut case of self-defense. The video shows the assailant obviously backing away for at least a couple of seconds before the shooter fired and that is problematic.

The attack itself, IMO probably would have justified deadly force had it continued or had deadly force been immediately used by the shooter. I think it would have been possible to articulate and support a disparity of force between someone who has been knocked to the ground and an able-bodied attacker still on his feet and in the progress of attacking. It's also important to consider the shooter's perspective: someone just blindsided him with a violent physical attack and he may be confused about what's happening and very afraid of what could happen next.

The shooter was clearly justified in drawing his gun and, had he shot immediately upon drawing, it would have been a more clearcut case of self-defense against an attack that couldn't be determined to have ended. Waiting a couple of seconds to shoot, when those seconds clearly show the assailant backing off and turning away, really muddies the water.

The fact that justification for deadly force exists at one point in an attack, obviously doesn't mean it continues indefinitely. Once a reasonable person would believe that the attacker is withdrawing from the confrontation it's no longer a deadly force situation. Of course, that's a reasonable person in the position of the person being attacked. What's 'reasonable' for someone watching a video probably isn't the same 'reasonable' for someone on the ground after being blindsided with a violent attack, with the attacker still nearby.

Finally, my guess is that there's a pretty good chance that this will be ruled to be justifiable self-defense in spite of the fact that some aspects are not textbook. Society tends to take a very dim view of people who would blindside a person with a violent attack because of an exchange of words.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Thirty-nine posts trying to figure out the legal consequences of a use of lethal force based solely on a video that's one minute and thirteen seconds long and a short news article. Doesn't it occur to anyone there's a lot more information about the incident -- information we don't have and which might very well be material to any meaningful legal analysis?