So.... good shoot?

[Paladin3]

Here is where I take exception. No matter what I am saying, if I am merely saying something and someone comes up and slams me to the ground, I might shoot if I had a gun. Anyone so mentally unstable as to use (any) excuse for the first point of contact to be assault, has to be assumed an immediate and persisting threat.

What would make them less of a threat, is if I were able to get up and have a fair defense, but odds are that right after someone attacks you like this, their only hesitation in pummeling you further is if you don't get up, but if you don't get up then the last thing you may ever see is the kick to your head.

This is the unfortunate state of society today. While I would shoot the guy in the same situation, what I'd have done differently is not be in that situation in the first place, so yeah the shooter is guilty of manslaughter. I don't buy being guilty of murder because he didn't pull the gun out until after assaulted. You can't really claim that words instigate violence, without simultaneously throwing away our right to free speech, a right that is far more valuable than any one life.

And the husband may have signaled a group of ninjas to attack had he not been shot by the old man. Sound reasonable to you?

You can't use deadly force to stop an attack from an attacker that is in retreat. Once someone stops attacking you it would be an very exceptional instance for you to REASONABLY believe you are still in danger of death or great bodily harm.

So I don't think a jury is likely to believe the old man was in immediate threat from the retreating husband at the moment he shot. I think you are ignoring that the husband was moving backwards away from the gun. It also sounds kind of like you are saying if someone pushes you off your feet while you are yelling at his wife that you are going to kill him regardless.

 

[Zorba]

Nah, don't edit it. Gun owners are okay to stereotype. It's not honest, but it's acceptable and expected behavior these days.

Again, I wasn't stereotyping gun owners, I was stereotyping people that think having a gun gives them the right to start a fight and then end it with a bullet (like Gag, Mindless and Spidery). No need to play the victim card.

But just like police, until the good gun owners come out against the bad, some amount of lumping is justified. The vast majority of cops and gun owners are great people, but some are POSes. When the good ones try to protect the bad ones, then they will have some guilt by association. And it isn't just the bad gun owners voting for these laws.

 

[Zorba]

I watched the video with the Sheriff's commentary and am not sure I agree with his argument. Criminally, the judge and jury would have to decide if it's reasonable that the old man felt threatened enough by the husband to use deadly force. If this case isn't prosecuted criminally there will at least be a huge civil suit which I see the family of the husband wining easily.

Even in Florida, juries don't like seeing a man in retreat getting shot.

The WaPo article said that FL recently changed the law, so now the prosecutor has to prove the shooter wasn't in fear for his life, instead of the defendant proving he was. That is a harder level of burden. The WaPo article was at least making it sound like that might be the reason for the sheriff's position.

Unfortunately, I doubt this guy is worth much to be sued for, but at least it will ruin his life.

 

[Paladin3]

Again, I wasn't stereotyping gun owners, I was stereotyping people that think having a gun gives them the right to start a fight and then end it with a bullet. No need to play the victim card.

But just like police, until the good gun owners come out against the bad, some amount of lumping is justified. The vast majority of cops and gun owners are great people, but some are POSes. When the good ones try to protect the bad ones, then they will have some guilt by association. And it isn't just the bad gun owners voting for these laws.

Replace the word gun with the word black and your statement would get you banned. That's all I'm saying. I understand it may not be what you meant, but it is what you said. That's for correcting it to what you actually mean.

While I understand your point, you simply cannot reference mods or mod actions in open forum, for reasons I can only hope you understand. The sole legitimate venue to discuss any mod action is Moderator Discussions. Please find another way to make your points that does not involve referencing the mods.

Perknose
Forum Director

 

[paperfist]

Again, I wasn't stereotyping gun owners, I was stereotyping people that think having a gun gives them the right to start a fight and then end it with a bullet. No need to play the victim card.

But just like police, until the good gun owners come out against the bad, some amount of lumping is justified. The vast majority of cops and gun owners are great people, but some are POSes. When the good ones try to protect the bad ones, then they will have some guilt by association. And it isn't just the bad gun owners voting for these laws.

Did you see a video with audio?

 

[Zorba]

Did you see a video with audio?

No, did you? In the video you can clearly see other customers reacting to the situation from 30+ feet away and the husband left the store before he finished his purchase because he heard what was going on. This is pretty strong evidence the guy was yelling at the woman.

 

[zinfamous]

I agree the bar is way too low. Literally all you need to do to legally kill someone is start an argument and have them respond physically in the most minimal of ways according to this decision.

He didn’t hit him. He didn’t continue attacking him. He wasn’t standing over top of him.

The standard is way too low.

ammosexuals are beta snowflakes. That's why laws like this exist.

 

[Paratus]

Replace the word gun with the word black and your statement would get you banned. That's all I'm saying. I understand it may not be what you meant, but it is what you said. That's for correcting it to what you actually mean.

Being a gun owner is a choice. Being black is intrinsic. Despite how you may feel you do not have to be a gun owner and challenging that decision is nothing like racism or sexism.

 

[Zorba]

Replace the word gun with the word black and your statement would get you banned. That's all I'm saying. I understand it may not be what you meant, but it is what you said. That's for correcting it to what you actually mean.

Just for the record, owning a gun is a choice. Lobbying for laws that allow for the irresponsible use of guns, is also a choice. Getting on a bulletin board and claiming that a guy protecting his wife from an armed crazy man is a "Thug" that deserves to be killed, is also a choice (like the person I was responding to). Being black is not.

Comparing the two is a double whammy of victim card and racism rolled into one.

 

[Paladin3]

Okay. All bicyclists are assholes who don't care if they cause an accident. I'm sure that wouldn't offend any bicyclists, and if any complain they are wrong.

Edit: or how about all Muslims are terrorists? Some are, most aren't. But it's okay to stereotype if it's a choice that puts you in the particular group, right?

 

[Younigue]

Here is where I take exception. No matter what I am saying, if I am merely saying something and someone comes up and slams me to the ground, I might shoot if I had a gun. Anyone so mentally unstable as to use (any) excuse for the first point of contact to be assault, has to be assumed an immediate and persisting threat.

What would make them less of a threat, is if I were able to get up and have a fair defense, but odds are that right after someone attacks you like this, their only hesitation in pummeling you further is if you don't get up, but if you don't get up then the last thing you may ever see is the kick to your head. Taking a step or two backwards is not at all a retreat, is what anyone might do right after they slam someone to the ground, before continuing to assault them. Clearly the man did not and was not going to retreat because his car was right there.

This is the unfortunate state of society today. While I *might* shoot the guy in the same situation, what I'd have done differently is not be in that situation in the first place, so yeah the shooter is guilty of manslaughter. I don't buy being guilty of murder because he didn't pull the gun out until after assaulted. You can't really claim that words justify (instigate) violence, without simultaneously throwing away our right to free speech, a right that is far more valuable than any one life.

The man is a murderer.

 

[Jaskalas]

thats just cold blooded murder in any other state.

However horrible his actions were, being assaulted and heated is precisely not cold blooded.

 

[paperfist]

No, did you? In the video you can clearly see other customers reacting to the situation from 30+ feet away and the husband left the store before he finished his purchase because he heard what was going on. This is pretty strong evidence the guy was yelling at the woman.

Nope and I agree it was a senseless death.

Yeah I see the other customers taking notice, but none of them seem concerned enough to do anything. It looks nothing happens until that one guy that got out of the car and lets that girl into the store goes inside and tells the husband.

I don't think the shooter's intent was to kill the lady for parking in a handicap spot, he was just letting off steam. It didn't escalate till the husband plowed the shooter over. If that was my wife and kid I'd defend them too, but I wouldn't start off by doing what that guy did.

 

[mindless1]

You can't use deadly force to stop an attack from an attacker that is in retreat. Once someone stops attacking you it would be an very exceptional instance for you to REASONABLY believe you are still in danger of death or great bodily harm.

The attacker was not in retreat. It is impossible for him to be in retreat by a mere couple of steps and to be shot in the chest by someone on the ground. Yes the shooter should 100% believe that he is in danger of death when physically attacked by someone over words and hand gestures.

No matter what I say or do with my hands, short of laying them on someone else, if anyone uses that as an excuse to assault me, they may get shot. If the shooter had physically assaulted the woman in the car first, then it's a different story, but when the husband is the first point of physical assault, his mental state is that of a rabid animal that needs put down. Maybe they both did.

It also sounds kind of like you are saying if someone pushes you off your feet while you are yelling at his wife that you are going to kill him regardless.

There is no regardless, there is this specific situation in this video. The shooter was an arm's length away from the car, not assaulting the woman. He had not pulled his gun yet so she was safe enough in the vehicle outside of striking distance. The victim rushed up and assaulted him. The victim DID NOT RETREAT. Two steps backwards is not a retreat. It is still an easy strike position before the shooter could get up. The shooter should have had every expectation that in trying to get up, that he'd be assaulted again.

I am saying that I will shoot someone for responding to my words with a sneak up physical assault, and that taking two steps backwards, is not going to change that. On the other hand, it does concern me that there was that 1-2 second pause, but I can analyze that after the fact while to the shooter who was just assaulted and still down, I can't expect the reaction to an assault to be any different.

Short version: If you don't want to be shot, don't assault people. Do not think you or anyone else has the option of assaulting someone then just taking two steps backwards and acting like you got away with it. That is not how things work.

There are a million ways someone with bad judgement can get themselves killed. This is one of them.

 

[Younigue]

Okay. All bicyclists are assholes who don't care if they cause an accident. I'm sure that wouldn't offend any bicyclists, and if any complain they are wrong.

Dumb analogy. Like really really dumb.

Imagine if you will telling a bicyclist he/she is a piece of shit and because his or her feelings are hurt he or she arms themselves (with their bike) and heads out to the streets to to get their killing spree on. Feel free to let me know when you're done shaking your head at yourself.

 

[Younigue]

Nope and I agree it was a senseless death.

Yeah I see the other customers taking notice, but none of them seem concerned enough to do anything. It looks nothing happens until that one guy that got out of the car and lets that girl into the store goes inside and tells the husband.

I don't think the shooter's intent was to kill the lady for parking in a handicap spot, he was just letting off steam. It didn't escalate till the husband plowed the shooter over. If that was my wife and kid I'd defend them too, but I wouldn't start off by doing what that guy did.

Bullshit. You do not know how you would have responded to someone harassing your family. Maybe you would push the guy and you'd be dead for it.

My first reaction is never physical or violent BUT I do get verbal and loud in defense of people I love (even crushed someone in a pool game once because I overheard him saying mean things about my friend, I'm not a great pool player but when I'm angry I run the balls like a pro <--- I guess it's brag time. I have no other reason for sharing that story) but the hair does go up on the back of my neck when protection mode kicks in.

Also it's a sad state of affairs but we see video after video with people in a heightened state of irritation and witnesses doing nothing! You can not tell by their non action how agitated the murderer was.

 

[BUTCH1]

I don't think it is that simple even in FL. The police are still required to do an investigation.

True, but as we've seen time and again the law has seemingly always favored the "stand your ground rule" as a default. In reality everyone knows that although the he had shoved the idiot to the ground the attacker did not continue the attack and was in the process of backing away when shot.

 

[Younigue]

The attacker was not in retreat. It is impossible for him to be in retreat by a mere couple of steps and to be shot in the chest by someone on the ground. Yes the shooter should 100% believe that he is in danger of death when physically attacked by someone over words and hand gestures.

No matter what I say or do with my hands, short of laying them on someone else, if anyone uses that as an excuse to assault me, they may get shot. If the shooter had physically assaulted the woman in the car first, then it's a different story, but when the husband is the first point of physical assault, his mental state is that of a rabid animal that needs put down. Maybe they both did.



There is no regardless, there is this specific situation in this video. The shooter was an arm's length away from the car, not assaulting the woman. He had not pulled his gun yet so she was safe enough in the vehicle outside of striking distance. The victim rushed up and assaulted him. The victim DID NOT RETREAT. Two steps backwards is not a retreat. It is still an easy strike position before the shooter could get up. The shooter should have had every expectation that in trying to get up, that he'd be assaulted again.

I am saying that I will shoot someone for responding to my words with a sneak up physical assault, and that taking two steps backwards, is not going to change that. On the other hand, it does concern me that there was that 1-2 second pause, but I can analyze that after the fact while to the shooter who was just assaulted and still down, I can't expect the reaction to an assault to be any different.

Short version: If you don't want to be shot, don't assault people. Do not think you or anyone else has the option of assaulting someone then just taking two steps backwards and acting like you got away with it. That is not how things work.

There are a million ways someone with bad judgement can get themselves killed. This is one of them.

Fu*k you! The dead guy brought pushing hands to a gun fight. When he saw the gun his reaction was fear not continuing or escalating rage. You're saying you'd just shoot? Then you're fu*king mentally ill.

You know children can sometimes be pretty scary in fits of rage. Dr. Phil does shows on them on a regular basis. They can often hit and punch and use inanimate objects to threaten and be just all around very threatening. Should they also be shot? How about mentally ill people? I worked with mentally ill people for a short time. Several of them could become violent in the blink of an eye. None of us were armed. By your logic I should see the error in our ways and them there mentally ill folk should have been some dead mentally ill folk.

Your temper alone based on what you're saying here should preclude you from gun ownership.

 

[Zorba]

Okay. All bicyclists are assholes who don't care if they cause an accident. I'm sure that wouldn't offend any bicyclists, and if any complain they are wrong.

Edit: or how about all Muslims are terrorists? Some are, most aren't. But it's okay to stereotype if it's a choice that puts you in the particular group, right?

I'm sorry you are so triggered. Again I wasn't talking about all gun owners, I was talking about people that defend starting a fight then claiming self defense. The people that start shit or think it is okay to only because they have a gun.

Let me know when there is a massive movement of bikers getting laws passed that give them the legal right to kill people for diving too close to them.

BTW, you are defending people that are calling a husband defending his family a thug and rabid animal that needs to be put down. If you agree with those comments, I'm glad I offended you.

 

[Zorba]

Nope and I agree it was a senseless death.

Yeah I see the other customers taking notice, but none of them seem concerned enough to do anything. It looks nothing happens until that one guy that got out of the car and lets that girl into the store goes inside and tells the husband.

I don't think the shooter's intent was to kill the lady for parking in a handicap spot, he was just letting off steam. It didn't escalate till the husband plowed the shooter over. If that was my wife and kid I'd defend them too, but I wouldn't start off by doing what that guy did.

Most people wouldn't get involved in that sort of situation. But I agree, the husband shouldn't have lead in with the push. However, I seriously doubt he would've been charged for assualt in the situation either, much less the death penalty.

 

[Younigue]

Most people wouldn't get involved in that sort of situation. But I agree, the husband shouldn't have lead in with the push. However, I seriously doubt he would've been charged for assualt in the situation either, much less the death penalty.

Agreed. If it had stopped there and the man who would become his killer sued, the pusher would have likely been ordered to get some anger management or some shit but you know what he wouldn't have gotten? The death penalty OR life in prison.

 

[umbrella39]

Yeah... Both of my parents died a few years back who had snowbirded from Michigan to Sarasota. We have no reason to go there any longer and in light of what went down here won't be coming back any time soon. I let the Bureau of Tourism and Rick Scott know via email. Won't do much I'm sure but if enough people stop visiting and it hurts their tourism industry enough it might start the ball rolling. I would never live in a State where the bar has been set so low...

 

[ch33zw1z]

Florida is the gift that keeps on firing. Gg.

 

[Jhhnn]

Murderous fucking jerk skates in Florida. Cuz reasons & shit.

 

[umbrella39]

Florida... trying to compete with Missouri in catchy State slogans...

The Shoot Me State