Guns & Stand Your Ground victory. Got a problem with that? video included.

This is just karma. Anyone who would push a weaker smaller older man like that, has done it before. And how many people had this guy terrorized in his life and how many more would he have terrorized? You’re just a nasty individual to do it I. The first place and pure scum to park in a handicap spot in the first place.

 

The Sheriff wasn't attacked. If one of his deputies had been attacked in a similar manner he would be singing a different tune.

 

It has been reported that he has a previous arrest for Aggravated Battery that the media is not talking too much about.

 

Not justified. If I was on a jury I would vote to find the man guilty of third degree manslaughter.
Hopefully the sentence would be more lenient, taking into account what the victim did to start the altercation. That's just one more reason I believe the jury should be given some input into how long the sentence is. The criminal statutes don't always reflect the particular circumstances.

Some might try to argue that it may have appeared to the man who had been shoved on the ground that the other man was lunging towards him, although that isn't the case seen from the angle of the video.

The other element to this, even if the shooter should get some punishment, we could debate whether his gun rights should be taken away or for how long.
(I'd lean towards that they shouldn't, but don't feel very strongly one way or the other)

I also voted yes in the poll, even though it wasn't adequately justified in this particular situation.

 

So you characterize a blind side violent attack as a brief scuffle. A man probably disabled man defends himself after an attack and you accuse him of making a decision at the "drop of a hat". No, his decision was made after a violent attack. You liberals certainly have a way with words. I guess in your world no one ever had their head split open from a fall to the pavement.

 

It wasn't his job to hold them at gunpoint. When he pulled his gun, he should have warned them to back off. If they didn't, he'd shoot.

I will say that the guy that pushed him down should have ran away immediately when he pulled that gun rather than standing there. Standing there like that could be interpreted as "looming over" him, presenting a continuing threat. But if it were me on the ground there, I would not have shot at that point.

 

If you are white and attacked by a non-white liberals think you are a racist if you defend yourself.

 

It doesn't even appear on the video like he was holding him at gunpoint. The man who pushed him seems to be standing there in surprise and he got shot before he started moving towards or away.

It looks like the Black man might have been planning to lunge towards him a few seconds before he realized he was holding a gun, but not after. That's a critical factor.

 

The problem with laws in Florida, they take all of the discretion out of it. If he is found guilty of any felony involving a gun where a person died, it is an automatic 20 years in jail. The alternative is letting him walk scott free.

 

And this is why I believe the jury should be given more input into what the punishment is. The discretion shouldn't even be left all up to the judge, because someone on the jury might still not want to vote guilty if they know what the potential punishment could be.

Another idea is to have different degrees for each type of crime (first degree, second degree, third degree) with each type of degree carrying its own particular sentence range (10-20 years, 7-12 years, 3-6 years, etc.), and then if the prosecutor chooses to charge the defendant with second degree, the jury can choose to find them not guilty and make a recommendation to charge them with third degree instead.

Or maybe retroactive decision, where once the judge decides the sentence, the jury can reconvene and choose to nullify the sentence until the judge lowers the sentence to an acceptable level. I'm not sure, just some ideas.

 

But that is the problem with these gun nut states. They used the 5/10/20 law to "balance" allowing concealed carry and stand your ground laws. Their claims were that judges don't effectively sentence gun laws so it needs to be so overly simplified it is ridiculous. The result is that criminals will get away with murder because law enforcement and juries don't want to over sentence.

 

On the other side of the argument, it could be argued not to assault someone else starting an altercation, if you don't want your murderer not to be punished.

I'm not feeling as much sympathy if the now-dead victim did what they did in that video.

 

Or die? Not in America.

 

The black dude deserved to be shot. You can't just go around pushing older citizens to the ground and loom over them in a threatening way. The older White guy was probably well aware of the disproportionate black violence and lack of impulse control within that race.......and certainly feared for his life.

 

YES, I'M BOTHERED BY IT!

If that is your idea of "armed self protection" then I think it's actually a really good argument for banning handguns! (even though I don't advocate banning handguns). AND, if that is your justification for carrying a gun, I think it would be wise to disallow you from ever owning any kind of gun.

 

The black guy defends his girlfriend from a thug who is harassing her over a parking space. He pushes the thug away from her, he falls, the guy steps away, the thug pulls out a gun and kills him The Sheriff knows that, in Florida, all that a white guy needs to do is claim "Stand your Ground". They don't even need an attorney. They just walk!

The question should be: "How can any human being who is not a racist or a psychopath not have a problem with that?"

 

BTW, the question in the poll is odd.

I support it as an example of why "Stand your Ground" should not exist. Now I'm wondering if you meant to ask if anybody "supports" the white guy killing the black guy. Is the latter what you were asking?

 

Shoving someone onto the pavement is a serious thing. You do realize there's a chance (even if a relatively small one) that the man's head could have been seriously injured? Especially older elderly people, it doesn't take much force for them to be killed. I saw a car accident where that happened. A big truck was going at relatively slow speed by the time it started breaking, and basically just "bumped" an elderly couple onto the ground, basically. No more force than if it had been a football linebacker. One of them died. It wasn't the force of the bump, it was falling on to the hard pavement.

 

https://codes.findlaw.com/fl/title-xlvi-crimes/fl-st-sect-784-011.html

(1) An “assault” is an intentional, unlawful threat by word or act to do violence to the person of another, coupled with an apparent ability to do so, and doing some act which creates a well-founded fear in such other person that such violence is imminent.


(2) Whoever commits an assault shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083 .

https://codes.findlaw.com/fl/title-xlvi-crimes/fl-st-sect-784-03.html

(1)(a) The offense of battery occurs when a person:


1. Actually and intentionally touches or strikes another person against the will of the other;  or


2. Intentionally causes bodily harm to another person.


(b) Except as provided in subsection (2), a person who commits battery commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083 .


(2) A person who has one prior conviction for battery, aggravated battery, or felony battery and who commits any second or subsequent battery commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 , s. 775.083 , or s. 775.084 .  For purposes of this subsection, “conviction” means a determination of guilt that is the result of a plea or a trial, regardless of whether adjudication is withheld or a plea of nolo contendere is entered.

According to the law of the state of Florida, the shove constitutes either assault, battery, or both offenses at once. The individual in question who was shot, made the conscious decision to initiate unprovoked physical force against another individual.

 

What has to stop is the Bleeding Heart's and Race Hustler's and Virtue Signaler's and Social Justice Warrior's sick and twisted notion that violent aggressors should always be given the benefit of doubt.....a second, third, fourth, fifth chance to eventually prove to society that they aren't the violent, sick, aggressive piece of crap criminals that they are.

Violent criminals make their own beds. Stupid people make their own beds. Irresponsible people make their own beds. it is not polite, law abiding society's responsibility to alleviate or altogether remove the consequences for their often chronic terrible decisions, as the left's Victim-Oppressor pimps so ridiculously espouse.

 

Soon after the attacker pushed the the guy to the ground, the attacker just stood there and backed off a bit. The threat was diminished.

 

How about this rule of thumb. If you attack someone be ready to get shot.

 

A diminished threat is not an absent threat, however. The aggressor was still in close physical presence to the victim, and had the physical ability to immediately reengage.

 

The Moralizers think cops are too tough on violent criminals, they think the justice system is too tough on violent criminals, they think armed, no-longer-helpless innocent victims are too tough on their violent victimizers.

and they are paying for it at the polls.

so please, be my guest....

 

if you're injured on the ground the threat is heightened. you are more vulnerable.