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

That's probably going to be the final determinant here Ronstar, maybe, but is the larger man retreating at the time of the shot? He stopped, I can see that, but in only 1 or 2 sec,the gun is fired by guy still on the ground, who is in some state of mind probably not quite as clear as you or I am analyzing this from our comfortable chairs.

 

You don't get shot in the center of your chest while retreating.

Would you like me to show you the video again of the Georgia woman shooting 4 attackers who are all fleeing?

 

video shows the initial attacker partially turned from the shooter and began moving away from him, once the gun was pointed at him.

any decent prosecutor can argue this was a retreat.

had attacker stood still, the shooting would have been justified.

 

It'll come down to an OODA loop defense.

He made the decision to shoot after being pushed, and as the man was coming toward him. Combine that with being violently shoved from the side and they have no case.

Self defense doesn't end because someone decides to take a step back with a gun in their face.

 

He drew, the guy starts backing up and continues to even going so far as to turn away, defendant is aiming the entire time, then fires.

As the guy backs away from him, even going so far as to TURN AWAY.

Only firing once is not necessarily a point in his favor. If you're scared you double tap or panic fire. He shot him, realized "o **** that's not justified" and stopped.

Your statement of if you get to pull it you get to use it. period. puts the lie to that. Its simply not the case in every situation that every time you get it out, by the time you're lined up to shoot the circumstances haven't changed enough to no longer put you in REASONABLE FEAR. Your fear can in fact be objectively unreasonable, making you subject to imperfect self defense.

How is he to continue his apparently imminent hand to hand assault of the defendant when he is 10' away at draw (your figure, not mine) and takes multiple steps back while turning away before he is shot, leaving him still farther away than when he began?
Is he Mr. Fantastic or something? Gonna stretch over at least 12 feet by that point? Eh?

Weapon and within arms reach to strike != no weapon and 10 feet away to start with while continuously backing up for at least 3 seconds and turning away. See how that works?

You haven't thought this through. You've admitted that the man first stopped his attack, then backed away. You've helpfully provided video that shows the dead man taking multiple steps back upon production of the weapon and turning to flee when he is shot. Dude waited too long, the situation changed, and his fear became unreasonable at that moment.
Imperfect self defense ie voluntary manslaughter.

 

Well, looks like we are going to have to view this video recording FRAME BY FRAME to see if the man is stopped, is advancing, or is turning, EXACTLY when the shot is fired.

And then must consider the moment to decide to pull the trigger, is actually about 1 sec BEFORE, so at that Frame, is the bigger man turned or not.

 

Irrelevant.

What is at the root of this is you simply don't like that he pulled the trigger, and you want to see him jailed.

He wasn't arrested by the police because his usage of self defense was technically legal.

He was charged by the DA because feelz.

No, I never admitted he stopped his attack. The attack wasn't over until he was wearing lead inside his chest cavity. Then it was over.

Again, people who did not pull the trigger have had their firearms taken and used against them.

You're losing every point in this argument, but your feelz will make you keep going.

 

"
776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.—
(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.
(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be."
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0776/0776.html

The belief does not simply have to exist, as you claimed earlier with your post saying all that would have to be proven is the guy wasn't really afraid.
"

"

The belief must be reasonable, and the threat must be imminent for the belief to be such. The threat was no longer imminent as is shown by the video you provided wherein the defendant produces his pistol and the dead man immediately takes several steps back and begins to turn away to flee when he is shot.
Hence the belief was unreasonable. Hence the use of force was not justified.

Notice how in the statute it also talks about the THREAT of deadly force and being justified in using the THREAT of deadly force?
THREAT of deadly force sits at a different place in the continuum of use of force than use of deadly force. An imminent threat halted by THREAT of deadly force is not one which merits USE OF DEADLY FORCE, hence the plain language of the statute recognizes that at times the threat of deadly force is all that's required and is perfectly reasonable. However, that same language holds the implication that there are times when threat is reasonable, but use is not.
This is one of those times. By the time USE was employed, THREAT had done the job of turning away the imminent threat as evidenced by him beating feet even going so far as to begin to turn around and get about half-way there.

 

Did you hear about the violent concentration camp inmate from Bosnia who got blown away in the Snellville GA Walmart parking lot over a parking space? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ead-driver-outside-Walmart-parking-space.html

 

Positioning, direction, momentum, intent, of the claimed imminent threat to life and limb is irrelevant in a use of force analysis? That's a bold strategy cotton, let's see how it plays out for you.

I want him punished for unjustified use of deadly force.... because I think I can demonstrate, and have with your helpful video link, that his use of deadly force was unjustified? Next you'll tell me I want thieves put in jail because they're thieves and commies dropped from helicopters because they're thieves that refuse to be honest about their desire to steal.

He wasn't arrested by the police initially because the CLEO of that county wanted to grand stand and bitch about stand your ground laws tying his hands, which they don't.

He was charged by the DA because the sheriff's grandstand bitching is just that and the tape you yourself so helpfully linked shows why.

I mean, you did. Multiple times. We all saw it. Multiple times.
The attack was over as soon as he stopped, back peddled, and turned to flee.

Which is why you remain vigilant and if circumstances change again, you shoot the ****er. If he'd changed direction ONE TIME back toward you that would be enough. But check the tape: Does that happen? No? He only backs away and then TURNS TO FLEE?
Alternatively: you could line your shot up faster and not miss your chance for a justified shoot.

The Dunning Kruger is Strong with this one.

 

See above dear. You've really got to use the legal standards in play rather than what you wish they were or think they are or you're going to have a bad time.

 

Great.

I enjoyed your wall of text, and look forward to you convincing people he was fleeing when he was shot center mass from 10 feet.

You should lead with your "the attack was over when the gun was pointed at him, anything past that is illegal self defense". That's a good start.

There is no requirement for you to wait to be attacked a second time in self defense, sorry.

Keep inventing new self defense theories though, I'm enjoying watching your argument twist in the wind.

 

I don't give a rat ass about what you are disgusted by. I have said the man wasn't justified, but if you start cursing a man's wife out you might get punched. This ass clown has threatened to shoot folks in the past all we hear is silence and excuses from you guys.

 

Great.

Show me a case where someone violently attacked someone, and stepping back was considered to have ended the encounter.

That would be great fun though. Just walk up, hit someone over the head with a baseball bat, then take a step back and go "neener".

 

I'll take your failure to address the argument as the concession of you being incorrect that it is.

You may also want to not attribute quotes to me that I did not write. You do not do a loose attribution, to equate one's argument with another statement for rhetoric's sake, by using direct quotes. Fix that. It could be construed as intellectual dishonesty, and sort of chicken ****. You know?


There is a requirement that you be under imminent threat, which is not accomplished by a guy more than 10' away from you and moving away from you as he's shot, but then you knew that.

You keep misquoting the legal standards at play and you want to throw stones, Mr. Glasshouse?

 

Like I said, good luck telling a jury that a guy who had just been violently attacked shouldn't be in fear of death or bodily injury.

Have fun.

 

You can take your losing this discussion however you want.

Well snookums, quote what you felt was attributed unfairly. I'll be glad to break it down for you.

A person who has already been attacked is clearly under imminent threat. They didn't teach you that one?

 

Ah the strawman, last refuge of those who are wrong.

 

I'm not a prosecutor. Not my circus, not my monkeys. I'm simply stating an analysis based upon the law and the facts.

 

and if you shove a non-violent man to the ground you might get shot.

guess lesson was learned.

 

I'm afraid not, but I see based on how long it took you to come up with that claim, you have nothing else.

You have stated, multiple times, that by the guy stepping back once the gun was presented, there was no further danger.

If that is true, then hitting someone with a bat and immediately stepping back means you can't shoot them, which is clearly stupid.

This is, however, exactly what you are saying.

Maybe you're realizing now how bad your argument really is. I doubt it, but maybe.

 

Oh I see. You wouldn't be presenting that argument since you're not the prosecutor, but if you were, that's what you'd go with.

 

Aww you're just precious when you're a sore loser.

Only one sentence in that paragraph has quotes around it soooooooo..... maybe you should take that as a clue? You want me to wipe your ass for you as well as your nose?

They're under imminent threat while attacked, but florida law doesn't have a "you owe him one" system. Circumstances must be judged as they are in the present instant force is employed (Popps case under florida law. ). In the present instant the shots were fired, the dead man was moving away from the shooter, backpeddling and turning away as well the mere threat of force having been sufficient in this particular instance to turn his switch from fight to flight.
So if he'd drawn and fired before the guy stopped, backpeddled, and turned away? Justified. Since he didn't? Not.
See how that works?

 

I'm not going back to read what I said, you can tell me again or you're welcome to keep sniveling about it. Either way is fine with me.

You're welcome to argue that a guy who shoots a guy within 3 seconds of being violently attacked, who is shot 10 feet away and center mass, is a bad shoot if you want.

Losing case, but go with your feelings.

 

As a person who does criminal defense at times (unfortunately. Student loans must be paid. I send out letters for HOA's too, which I think is worse than criminal defense, personally.) I'm analyzing what I would expect the prosecution to lead with and what I would therefore be tasked with defending against. Just because I can see both sides, doesn't mean both sides can win. You breach your ethical duty if you knowingly give your client false hope or advance an argument you think not legally sound.

After this conversation would be the "My advice is to plead out because that video is going to kill you" conversation, and the referral out to one of the various flavors of true believer I know from law school and general practice along with the "no charge for the consult. Sorry I couldn't help you" when he decides not to. And a "told you so dumbfuck" shake of the head when he ends up with the max for manslaughter instead of the minimum.