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

Not all disabilities are obvious. Some disabilities could be respiratory.

 

And the placard should have the persons name printed on it so a police officer could check on the spot.

This reminds me of something I saw yesterday. I woman in my local Wal-Mart, walking again at a brisk pace, carrying one of the hand baskets, bending over getting items. She had her dog with her and it was wearing one of these, picture from Amazon shopping which anyone can get.


Now she was not blind obviously, she was able to retrieve the items she needed, the dog wasn't pulling a wheelchair.

"While service dogs do provide comfort and emotional support for their owners, they only meet the federal definition if they do a job the owner can’t perform themselves."
https://www.rover.com/blog/difference-emotional-support-animal-and-service-dog/

Emotional support animals do NOT have full access and cannot be designated as service dogs. This seems to be a rising problem although some businesses are trying now to bring it under control.

 

I never said anything about resorting to violence.

I never said anything about violence.

 

Shooting a man in his torso is intent to kill, in the military you are taught to shoot center mass.

 

Yea he and Ivana could have had a black son, you can't make this **** up.

 

And if they had severe respiratory problems they would have oxygen and not be able to briskly walk through the store chasing their children and pushing a heavy cart.

My state

As determined by a licensed physician, persons with disabilities which limit or impair their ability to walk means persons who:
(1) Cannot walk two hundred feet without stopping to rest; or
(2) Cannot walk without the use of, or assistance from, a brace, cane, crutch, another person, prosthetic device, wheelchair, or other assistive device; or
(3) Are restricted by lung disease to such an extent that the person’s forced (respiratory) expiratory volume for one second, when measured by spirometry, is less than one liter, or the arterial oxygen tension is less than 60 mm.hg on room air at rest; or
(4) Use portable oxygen; or
(5) Have a cardiac condition to the extent that the person’s functional limitations are classified in severity as Class III or Class IV according to standards set by the American Heart Association; or
(6) Are severely limited in their ability to walk due to an arthritic, neurological, or orthopedic condition

 

sorry, I was referring to this case

 

The danger was when the other guy shoved him to the ground. He pulled the gun, which was the right thing to do. Ones the aggressor backed up, then their is no obvious danger. Had he taken a step 'forward', then shoot away. But the backwards step is the indicator that the individual is no longer an aggressor. Your supposed to stop and wait at this point (keeping the gun trained on the individual)

Ok there bud. Yeah, shooting the part of the body with the majority of the major organs in it is totally to keep him incapacitated and not dead. Right.

I look at it this way. If you can't handle the stress and responsibility that comes from owning, handling, and using a gun, then you shouldn't have it.

 

Whiners? Only those that cry for the government’s gun to get special privileges from their fellow citizens.

 

Not necessarily on the tanks. There are many people with respiratory issues that are not on tanks 24/7...some are hardly on tanks at all.

Even your own State's laws does not qualify it to only people on tanks. Tanks are not mentioned until item #4.

 

Have you thought that if handicapped parking privileges didn’t exist, one man would be alive today? Perhaps a thought worth considering?

 

And if they can walk 200 feet without stopping and resting they do not qualify. If they have oxygen with them so they can they do qualify. If they are suffering from such respiratory disability they are not going to be walking briskly through the store chasing and yelling at their kids.

And again what message does it send to the kids?

 

Hands off!
Don't get shot.

 

No, just no. The video shows him shove him to the ground and then step towards him until the gun is presented. Recoiling from that is reflexive.

You have no idea that he was no longer a threat.

Besides, simply carrying out an attack that can result in death or serious bodily injury means I get to make sure you're incapable of attacking me again. You've already proven you're a threat by attacking in the first place.

There is no "one step away" or "4 second rule" in legal self defense.

As for shooting center mass, you are trained to shoot center mass because a) It's the largest and most easily hit part of your target b) It gives you the best chance of completely incapacitating your target

Death is not the intention from shooting center mass, the intention is to stop the person who is trying to harm you as fast as possible. Death may occur, but death can also occur if I shoot you in the leg or the arm.

Only someone who knows nothing about using a firearm would suggest shooting in the leg or the arm anyway.

THAT is a defense that you weren't actually in fear for your life, and can lead you to be charged for attempted murder.

Luckily, we don't need to go with the armchair quarterback's theory of self defense. The law states that if you are attacked, you may defend yourself with deadly force, regardless of someone taking a step away from you when they realize they're ****ed.

 

I can have discussions with the most extreme on the right or the left. However, I little patience in any discussion with those that appear to be in their own little reality and have shown no redeeming qualities. This is not the first time I have felt this towards you. I think it is best that I just put you on ignore. I would be extremely grateful if you do the same for me.

 

No it's not.

Shooting him 4 or 5 times then proceeding into the store after and shooting him again would have.

None of those things happened.

You're trained to shoot center mass in the military because that's the best method of hitting your target.

It works better than aiming for the hands and feet of your opponent.

 

Yeah, recoiling is reflexive. Staying away is not. Had he made a step towards the guy, then as I said, fire away. But once he is not close enough to you to touch you or hurt you, then he is outside the danger zone.

Just because he shoved him once, doesn't give the other guy carte blanche to shoot him no matter what he is doing. Part of the Self-Defense law is the threat of 'Immediate' danger. If the guy is standing there and not moving towards you, then it's not 'immediate'. one step and then it does become immediate, based on the fact that he already shoved him once.

But shooting a guy who is just standing there? Not self-defense.

And I see your point, where you focus on the intention of the individual, vs the probability that getting shot in the centre mass will result in death. That's a reasonable position.

 

I'd like to see a registration tag on the dog which can be checked on a state government web site.

 

One step isn't staying away. Inside 20 feet people can still kill you before you can react.

He did step towards him, until the gun came out.

We NOW know that the guy who committed aggravated assault on this man didn't have a gun or a knife, but the victim didn't know that at the time.

Your argument holds no water.

Why?

Because he shot the guy once, and the guy who got shot ran away. Had the guy shot him 4 or 5 times, then followed him into the store to shoot him some more, you might have an argument.

The shooter exhibited great restraint only shooting his attacker once, but kept his gun trained on him until he was far enough away that he felt safe again.

If someone wasn't STILL a threat, you wouldn't feel the need to point your gun at them in the first place.

In a self defense shooting, if you are truly in fear for your life, your only intention is stopping the person from harming you, and doing it as fast as possible.

If you don't ,this is what happens.

You'll notice this guy walked away too. Initially. Then he came back.

 

Right. Until the Gun came out. The essential part of this whole thing. Had he continued, then shoot. He didn't. So you don't shoot.

If he comes back, shoot. I don't know why this is difficult. He moves towards you, shoot him. He doesn't, you don't. If he gets close to you or attempts to in any way, you shoot him. If he doesn't, you don't.

And if a guy who's outside your arms length, but within 20 feet, gets to you before you can shoot your Already Trained gun on him? Then the gun was never going to save you in the first place.

 

There is no requirement under self defense law, once attacked or in reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury, to use a firearm as a deterrant.

If you are attacked, you can pull the trigger. That's the law.

Since the guy ALREADY attacked him, all he has to do is show he was in fear of death or bodily injury, which is clear from the video.

There is no "ok, here's my gun buddy, don't take another step" requirement in self defense, particularly when you've already been attacked.

Yeah. That's why if you have the opportunity to shoot someone who has attacked you inside 20 feet, you take the shot. They're still a threat.

 

I'll explain to you why his previous assault convictions and domestic violence convictions are a problem for him....

Previous convictions for assault and battery open up the possibility of charging any further assaults as felonies under FL law.

If a case can be made that this was aggravated assault, a felony, the case is over.

https://statelaws.findlaw.com/florida-law/florida-assault-and-battery-laws.html

Florida Criminal Battery Law


When the defendant makes physical contact with the victim, Florida state laws allow for prosecution of the act as a battery. To prove a battery case, the prosecutor must show that the defendant intentionally touched or struck the victim. The physical contact must have been against the victim's will and done without the victim's consent.


As with assault, Florida law establishes several types of battery. Simple battery only requires an intentional, unwanted physical contact between the defendant and the victim. If the defendant has a previous conviction for battery, state laws permit the prosecutor to charge the defendant with felony battery for a subsequent offense. To prove aggravated battery, the prosecutor must show that the defendant intended to cause serious bodily injury to the victim or that the defendant used a deadly weapon.

 

OK....I just read the "New" Florida stand Your Ground law. I think this guy will be convicted of murder. Here is the law:

I do not think that there was reason to believe that his life was at risk or that he was at risk of serious bodily injury. Just because he was assaulted, that is very likely not enough. The prosecutor will focus on "imminent death" and "great bodily harm". I saw no IMMINENT risk of death or potential for GREAT bodily harm. The automatic presumptions do not apply. Per 1(a) non-deadly force was allowed, but the justification for the use of deadly force will be on the defendant to prove.

 

I have handicapped PLATES and I walk just fine....for about 30 yards, then my back spasms out and it's off to the hospital, no, not all the time, not even most of the time but when it happens I'm laid up in purest AGONY for a month or more and they won't even give you pain killers any more. They tell me that eventually I'll need surgery and that will likely as not paralyse me at my age, so then at least I won't have to deal with Alvin ******* telling me I should give the space to someone who needs it.

I've known people who have bad hemorrhoids and got plates for it. Do you think they want to explain that to every Charlie Crusader who happens to see them not using a wheelchair?

If somebody has the placard they have the placard and it's NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. You're not really supposed to treat a handicapped person any different than anyone else and that INCLUDES not harassing them about whether they're REALLY handicapped in your stupid opinion

 

This is sad and wrong on so many levels.

We shouldn't HAVE guns, we should outlaw them entirely under mandatory 20 years for first offense possession. Guns are too dangerous for ANYONE, you, me, the police, ANYONE but soldiers in combat. **** the hunters and target shooters, get a useful hobby and buy your meat from the back of the store, like God intended Yeh, yeh, I know, they're just machines and they're not dangerous at all unless a human it using it yadda, yadda. So is heavy earthmoving equipment but you're not allowed to get your groceries with a bulldozer.. **** your rights, get rid of ALL the ****** things or watch them destroy your life in ways you never intended.