Sheriff called parking spot shooting legal under ‘stand your ground’ laws. Prosecutors disagreed.

Even if the Stand Your Ground Law was revised back to requiring the gunowner to retreat, its unclear, since the gunowner was ambushed so quickly by the shoving man, that the gunman did not have time to retreat before that "assault" upon his body occurred. He was pushed, and he fell backwards. Is that not enough of a retreat in itself?

So even the "duty to retreat" that was a requirement of the previous law, might not prevent this kind of use of deadly force, since 3 things happened, 1. the concealed gun man was bodily assaulted. 2. The gun owner was not displaying or brandishing the gun prior to the bodily assault. 3. The result of the bodily contact literally forced the gun owner away and down to the ground, thus defacto, the gunman has "retreated".

Also 4. The gunowner was legally licensed to conceal carry a gun, and its a question of what allowances there are in the state of Florida where the gun can be carried, on public spaces. It could get very complicated if the parking lot is considered part of the property of the business.

 

The push from the side to the concrete occurs at 1:06. At 1:08 and 1:09 he advances on him taking several steps towards him. This is a good indication of how hard he shoved him to the concrete.

At 1:10 he draws. At 1:11 he shoots.

One second. Maybe two to draw and fire.

 

And how many seconds elapsed from draw to back away to fire?

How long did he stand there? What was he doing while he just stood there? In what way did he present a continuing imminent threat to life and limb? Charging his laser beam eyes?

His initial attack was halted by the defendant producing a firearm. He then began to back away. When shot he was NOT advancing TOWARD the defendant. Any statement that he was advancing TOWARD the defendant while shot is a blatant falsehood.

This is not a ******ned buffet. You don't get to use force when you're ready but after the threat has passed.
The defendant was pissed that after all these years he was FINALLY able to legally shoot someone, only to miss his window of the shoot being justified when he took so long lining up his shot from 10' away that the guy stopped and started backing up.
If you miss that window in time, when they are a present imminent threat to life and limb to when they become an imminent in the past threat to life and limb and potential future imminent threat to life and limb: you've missed your shot. If you take it at that point, its not justified. If you keep the piece out and wait for them to become presently imminent again: You can take that shot.

No one said he had to put his piece away, only that shooting the man when he was backing away was not justified in these circumstances .

 

Yeah if you watch the video I just posted he clearly ambushes him.

He doesn't say anything, doesn't attract attention, just strolls up to him casually before attacking.

 

Watch the tape again. He's backing away from 108 on and turned away like he's going to walk the **** off.

 

Which makes his initial assault unjustified. It does not in turn per se make the defendant's conduct legal.

 

It is your opinion that the threat has passed, not a legal fact.

Has there ever been a person who had a gun trained on someone within 10 feet, and the attacker disarmed and killed the victim?

Yes, yes there has.

There is no "window in time". He didn't hunt him down, follow him to his house and shoot him. He shot him within a few seconds of being attacked.

You have no case here, counselor.

You need to prove that the man who shot the other man was not in fear of death or great bodily injury. Good luck with that.

 

I don't care what your prestidigitation tells you. He violently attacked a man and that man defended himself within seconds.

You have no case.

 

Great.

Go prove to a court that the man who was shoved was not in fear of death or great bodily injury.

 

If you're justified in drawing your firearm and pointing it at someone, you're justified in using it.

Might want to brush up on the law.

 

Your use of language gives you away here. being attacked, past tense. The attack was over as soon as he drew, which is clear from the tape you so helpfully provided. He's backing up from 108 when the draw occurs to 111 when he's plugged. When he's plugged he's turning away.

I do have a case here chief, particularly because what's bolded? THAT'S NOT THE STANDARD.
You can be in fear of death or great injury and it not be reasonable.

Google "imperfect self defense".

 

If you do it immediately as you draw and before various variables in the equation change by your production of the arm and their noticing it before they get to you?
Sure.

When you produce it and they stop and back away over several seconds, going so far as to turn away? Nope.


You even ratify my earlier argument: He pulled it out and missed his time to use it justified, when the dead man was still an imminent threat, so he said "**** it" and did it anyway.

Brush up on the law? I'd love to, cite me your caselaw.

 

See above, that's not the standard.

 

You mean that man produced a pistol, which was sufficient to stop the assault as over the next several seconds the man takes multiple steps back and begins to turn away such that he is shot side on?
That's not prestidigitation (no light tricks, sound tricks or sleight of hand here), that's apparent from the video YOU POSTED.
Don't like the video? Yell at yourself.

 

He drew. Aimed. Then fired.

All within a couple seconds. Three at the most.

A two second draw is not unusual for your average person who hasn't done a lot of training. Obviously drawing while on the ground after being violently shoved means he didn't take an inordinate amount of time to pull the trigger.

Also working in his defense is the fact that he only fired once, didn't pursue him, and didn't shoot him again on the ground.

I'm not ratifying your argument, I'm shredding it.

Like I said, good luck proving this man was not in fear of death or bodily injury, because that's what you'd need to do.

This is all basic self defense law covered by what is, and what is not acceptable in a self defense situation.

Go ahead and cite where taking a step back after violently attacking someone ends the reasonable person evaluation of being in fear of death or serious bodily injury.

I guess that means people can hit someone in the head with a baseball bat and take one step back.

You haven't thought this through. You're simply leading with emotion and trying to read minds.

 

I would agree the logical rational thing to do, if you are that sort of citizen that notices other citizens cars parked in handicapped zones and also take time out of your own affairs to look 360 degrees all around the car to notice no handicap sticker, and also take time to question the driver if they are picking up a handicapped person.. and find out they are not...

That you should take out your phone, dox the persons face, and get the license plate number, and then call the police.

Of course, the driver might then sue you later, after doxing you also with their phone, for violating their 4th amendment right of privacy by doxing them with your phone and verbally harassing them, but at least you will not have killed someone.

Then both you and the driver can drop your charges and appear on the public TV entertainment court of your choice, get 15 minutes of fame each, and about $5000 each, regardless what the judges verdict is.

 

Well then tell all of us what the standard is for lethal force in self defense.

 

There is no right to privacy in public.

 

Good lord.

No, self defense doesn't end when the gun is drawn, otherwise pulling the trigger would never be legal.

You really need to stop typing while being led by your emotions.

 

The perp took multiple steps back after he was shot. Too slow.

 

And whenever a violent felon dies the community as a whole benefits.

 

We've been over this.

Sufficient to stop the assault, in your opinion.

You don't know what would have happened if he had not pulled the trigger.

People have had their firearms taken away and killed with it because they didn't pull the trigger.

 

Technically, Vman12 is right, there is no violation of the SYG law. and it is difficult to really know what the state of mind of the gunman was after being suddenly pushed, and he fell backwards. There is no "time" requirement, nor duty to retreat, in the STG law as far as I know. All the gunowner has to say, is that at the point in time, when he drew his gun, he was in fear for his life, and the STG law considers that as justifiable.

But it does seem an awful outcome for such a minor preliminary incidence of disagreement over a parking spot.

And it will not help the gunowner that there is that Tow truck driver who will probably testify that he also had a similar confrontation with this gunowner at this same parking lot.

 

SYG does not protect you if the bad guy begins to retreat.

you are not allowed to shoot a retreating attacker, unless he has a weapon.

 

So what you're saying is, you'd try to prove "imperfect self defense", which is what I just said.

You'll have to prove he wasn't in fear of death or great bodily harm, after having been already attack, and the continuance of an attack by advancing on him.

Have fun with that short case.