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

A gun is by definition deadly force, yes

 

Yeah that's nice that you have that opinion but none of us care

 

Until his attackers history shows that the prosecutors could have charged him with felony assault, due to domestic violence and other assault charges he had on his record.

Serious bodily injury includes things like broken bones, which could have easily happened in that attack.

If they can show that shoving someone that hard onto concrete could have seriously injured him, his reaction was entirely legal.

 

Well I'm just going on the video tape, but yeah, the jury could hear a lot of information that we've not been privy to.

 

My bad FA.

 

They why did you read it, let alone reply? Are you just practicing ill manners for the next Trump rally?

 

Unless the Defense can prove that the shooter knew the man and his past, I would be VERY surprised if the Judge allows his past to be admissable. It would not be information that the shooter had at the time, so he did not shoot with that concern in mind.

The shooter's past will likely be admissible as it shows a pattern of aggressive behavior with threats of violence and shooting.

Possibly. It will depend on how good of a job the Defense does. After the shove, the shooter was sitting up and did not appear hurt (maybe he was). The Defense will need to prove that he felt another attack was imminent.

Personally, I think the Prosecutor's job will be much easier than the Defense.

 

All the prosecutors have to show is that, based on his history of assault, under FL law he COULD have been charged with a felony.

Lethal self defense during a felony assault is case closed.

If someone shoots at you and misses, I'm pretty sure you can still shoot back.

He didn't HAVE to be hurt. All he had to have is reasonable fear that he was in danger of serious bodily harm or death.

 

Hard to be in fear of serious bodily harm or death when someone is moving away from you.

 

He didn't move away.

When he got shot, that's when he moved away.

You don't get shot in the chest when you're "moving away".

 

That is not what the law I posted said. It does not say "felony" it says "forcible felony". The shooter did not know if the guy he shot actions qualified as a forcible felony....unless he thought his life was in imminent threat. In which case, that is already covered.

In any case, the Defense can not present evidence that their client did not know at the time of the shooting. Unless the shooter knew the dead guy, his past record is irrelevant and very few Judges will allow his past to be admissible.

Yes, he had to be in fear for his life or in fear of serious bodily harm. I think that will be VERY hard for him to prove just based on the video. I did not even see a case where he could prove that another attack was imminent, let alone whether his life was imminently in danger. Just feeling threatened will not be enough in most cases. He will have to prove that he was in IMMINENT danger. Something said....a weapon shown....the guy aggressively advancing....something of that nature. I did not see any of those in the video.

Florida changed their SYG laws after Zimmerman. Zimmerman had a person sitting on his chest and was having his head beat against concrete and there were still questions as to whether is life was in imminent danger. Any jury will have the same questions in this case.

Just calling it as I see it.

 

It's in the thread so I read it, I replied to let you know what I thought of your idea *ie that I didnt think much of it, particularly your reasoning.
Not a Trump fan

 

If the defense tries to bring in the shooters past, they'll open the door on it. Looks like they are.

If someone shoots at you and misses, do you have to wait to see if they try to shoot you again before you can shoot back? Kinda reminds me of Obama ROE.

Yes, feeling is the standard. If the person attacked fears they are in reasonable fear of bodily injury or death, you can pull the trigger.

Watch what the attacker does after shoving him.

He pulls his pants up while advancing on him, then the gun is presented. The attacker takes one step to the back/side reflexively. Then he is still facing him when shot.

You don't get shot in the chest when you're trying to disengage from an altercation.

 

Why not?

 

He stepped back when the guy pulled his gun and you do get shot in the chest if you are stepping backwards.

 

When he was on the ground he was completely helpless

 

Not when he pulled out his gun he wasn't.

 

And that's why he was carrying it.

 

You probably need it when you are so much of a coward that you go around attacking folks wives and girlfriends.

 

Yes, he was an *******, is.

 

That's nice, good you have no control. You dont 'need' a car that can go 120mph, either but I wont sit here and petulantly 'demand' that you get rid of one.

 

Show of hands, who doubts the attack would of continued, had no gun been involved?

 

Well, this is how I see it:

1. The shooter started the confrontation.
2. A man that has a history of aggressive behavior and has made threats, with a gun (or claimed he had a gun), of death. The Prosecutor will likely get his past admitted in order to establish intent of doing harm to anybody that took his bait of aggressiveness.
3. The shooter did not chastise the women quickly. He confronted her for over 1 minute. I'm sure he made his point and could have walked away.
4. His confrontation was apparently so loud that it caught the attention of the woman in pink walking out of the store.
5. It also caught the attention of the man walking into the store...so much that he stopped at the door and watched.
6. That will be used to show that the guy was so aggressive it became a spectacle....and with his past, they will paint it as a guy bent of harming someone.
7. His aggressiveness will be presented as threatening to the lady in the car and that the boyfriend was standing HIS ground and acted to prevent harm to his girlfriend (within the laws of non-deadly force).
8. When the shooter pulled the gun, the boyfriend backed away (you even admit this). He did not aggressively move towards the shooter. At that time the shooter's life was not in imminent danger.

I think this is a slam dunk for the prosecutor. They are only charging the shooter with manslaughter, but I think they have a case for First Degree Murder, based on his past. I think they went manslaughter instead because they would have to prove premeditation in the general desire to shoot some and it was not premeditated to shoot this specific individual. There is also the chance that the shooter's past would not be admitted.

 

A car isn't purposely designed to kill people

 

Prove the guy that got shot had a handicapped placard. I can't find anything in the article that says he did.