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

Hmmm, so if I park in a handicap space and don't have a placard who writes me a ticket for the violation?

 

Firearms are deadly weapons. One cannot shoot another, regardless of location, without it being regarded as an intent to kill. That is how the law of the united states actually works.

 

A single step back does not constitute moving away, and no longer remaining a present and physical threat.

 

Actually it does constitute 'moving away' by the very definition of 'moving away'. Besides which, it was more than one step.

 

Which is why the auto related fatality number is so shocking. People aren't even trying and they're murdering quite a few more people than firearms which are purpose built to kill.

 

Irrelevant to the shooting

 

You fail at 2. That's propensity and is not admissible.

 

The guy should have done what my disabled friends do and block the car in and call the cops for a $400 ticket.

 

Why?

 

Driving is actually a very challenging thing to do, and the vast majority of us drive FAR beyond what our reflexes and perceptions can reliably support, let alone our usually poorly maintained vehicles. SLOW DOWN and live. Studies utilizing expert police drivers have shown that the maximum time savings differential between legal and illegal speeds is barely measurable. The advent of computerized driving may save us here, I truly hope so

 

Or take a picture of the plate in the spot with your cell phone

 

Parking tickets can't be issued later.

 

According to Florida law, it is admissible. The Prosecutor can introduce it to show intent or motive (I posted the law earlier in this thread). However, they will need to declare their intent to introduce this evidence prior to the beginning of court proceedings.

 

Purposely blocking a car is false imprisonment, and illegal too.

 

agree, nobody likes that the victim parked in a handicap spot with all those other spots open and no one likes that the shooter used people parking in these spots as a outlet for his anger to harass people - these two wrongs collided on this day into one man dyeing and anothers life ruined

 

Please cite the statute about blocking a vehicle, false imprisonment means........

The car is blocked, the owner is free to leave.

 

don't disagree, I think this guy should be banned from owning a gun in the future

people that can not control their temper have no business carrying a gun

 

1. Nope. He was talking to someone about parking in a restricted spot. He never did anything aggressive to the woman in the car.

Remember, he would have had no idea who this guy was. He was not in the car when the guy who shot him drove up. For all he knew, it was some random guy jumping him.

2. We also know the aggressor has a history of physical violence.
3. Irrelevant. He didn't do anything violent to her.
4. Ok.
5. Ok.
6. Spectacles are not illegal and don't allow you to be physically ambushed.
7. We already know the "lady" is a liar. She testified that she didn't have anywhere else to park, and from the video that's clearly not true. For all we know, she was cussing him out and being aggressive.
8. He didn't back away. He took a step back, facing him, and re-assessing. That's irrrelevant. If someone shoots at me, misses, and steps back when I draw my gun, I can no longer pull the trigger?

The guy was standing there assessing. His intent was clear from the initial attack, walking towards him while on the ground, and then hesitating when he saw the gun. He did not walk away, he did not put his hands up. For all we know, if the guy hadn't pulled the trigger, the guy could have pulled a knife, a gun, or just rushed him.

 

I never said it was a 'legal requirement'. I said that once he stops moving towards you, and he is out of reach, then he is not a threat. Ergo, shooting him at this point is not self defense. The guy stopped moving. As long as he isn't moving, he isn't a threat. If he moves toward you, he is a threat.

 

Because when you disengage from someone pointing a gun at you, your back is to them.

If you want to see someone disengage from a fight, just watch what he does once he's shot.

He should have done that right away, instead of standing there looking at him.

 

So you're 100% sure that a guy who just knocked you to the ground without saying a word to you first, advanced on you while down, and then stops a few feet away from you can no longer hurt you?

Wrong.

Have people with guns ever been disarmed by an attacker and killed? Why yes, yes they have.

How exactly do you think that happened?

They thought the same thing you do right before they died.

An attacker at that range can close on you in less than a second. Your attacker is no longer a threat when they are incapable of hurting you. That's why you shoot them.

 

Feeling that you might be killed or seriously injured is exactly what the requirement is.

A hit from the side like that COULD have killed him, broken bones, or gave him a serious head injury.

That's the only requirement.

1. Did he feel his life was in danger or that he could be seriously hurt? Was there a reasonable belief that the attack he experienced could have killed him or seriously injured him?

The answer to both of those is : yes

It's pretty obvious there's an imminent danger when you find your ass on the concrete and the guy is coming toward you.

 

Him having a handicap sticker would not authorize him to use lethal force in a situation he could not otherwise employ lethal force in.

Either the guy was still an imminent threat of great bodily harm or he wasn't, dude having a sticker wouldn't change that.

 

I mean I sure notice the benefits of driving 100MPH in most areas when the drive is long (like a 6hr travel for a case can be shaved to 5 1/2 or so, giving me a little down town I wouldn't otherwise have. Plus I tend to get hypnotized driving slowly)

 

No, you just didn't understand the law. A common mistake of the lay person, don't fret. We'll fix it.

The Williams' Rule, which is codified in Florida Rule of Evidence 90.404(2), constitutes an exception to this general principle. Here, evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts of the accused is admissible if it is relevant to some issue in the case, other than propensity to commit the crime

https://www.kilfinlaw.com/blog/2015/july/floridas-williams-rule-what-is-it-what-does-it-m/

Character evidence is allowed, but not to prove propensity.