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

Finally some levity in the thread.

No, it's not clear the fight was over, since he was shot before he could have acted.

You're confusing the fight being over after he was shot, and assuming he wasn't going to do something else.

No, but having already been attacked with the guy still within distance of taking action does let us call him an imminent threat. He's past imminent, he's already attacked.

 

Sure. That 4 seconds between the gun coming out and the trigger being pulled is your evidence that it was over.

The fact is, people who have had weapons drawn on people have had their guns taken away and killed.

The fact is, this guy has attacked other people in the past that had guns.

You don't know what he would have done if he hadn't been shot after that 4 seconds.

Hate to break it to you, but when someone has already attacked you, you're free to retaliate.

 

Oh I never said that at all.

There were mistakes all around.

The woman should have never parked there, she should have moved when asked, the guy should have walked away and called the police after she refused, and the dead guy should have come out and defused the situation instead of attacking him.

All of the people involved in this event were ****ing morons.

 

And the guy who shot him returned the favor by getting his attention when he shot him.

 

If someone rapes a woman for four seconds then takes a step back, is he still a threat.

Standing his ground was his only option in the prone position.

We don't have to assume that the guy who got shot intended to cause serious bodily injury. He already did it.

Here's how we know it was self defense:

After you've already been physically attacked, the attacker must let you know that the assault is over. Signs of submission, words of submission, acts of submission.

If someone pulled a gun on you after you attacked them, what would be the unconscious acts you would take if you were intent on ending the encounter?

You would put your hands up, you would say "don't shoot" "I'm sorry" "this is over", etc. You would back up and keep backing up.

What your feet are doing is irrelevant. From the point of view of the guy with the gun, I can't even see your feet. You're slightly blurry to me because I've got you lined up in the sights. I'm watching your hands and my target (your torso)/face for signs of intent.

What does a physical attacker do who subconsciously intends to continue the assault? They make no gestures of submission, which are not on the video. They say nothing, which we have testimony that neither said a word to each other.

This guy intended to beat the guy who shot him to a pulp.

 

Yep people in very rare cases can die from getting knocked to the ground. Doesn't give you the right to kill the person who pissed you off.

 

It does actually. Engaging in an attack that could cause serious bodily harm or death gives you the right to use lethal force.

 

No.

Witnesses testified he never threatened to harm her, and he had no ability to harm her inside a car, and never tried to.

So I'm afraid not.

 

You don't have to cause harm. It just has to be capable of doing so.

If someone shoots at you and misses, I guess you can't shoot back until they hit you or something.

It has happened to me. Course that was in a foreign country and I was using an M16A2 at the time.

He was turned towards the guy. That's how he got shot in the chest.

 

No it doesn't. You have to in danger to use lethal force, not just pissed off.

 

Entered under his left nipple. Exit proves nothing, as bullets don't always take a straight path. Ask me how I know.

 

No. A verbal argument between two consenting adults led a third party to illegally assault one of the people in a verbal argument.

That's what led to the shooting.

Going with your logic, parking in a handicap spot and refusing to move caused a shooting.

Yeah. He reportedly carried for 25 years and I'm not aware of him ever actually pulling his gun in an argument.

 

Ok. If you're ever loading up your car and suddenly someone slams you to the concrete, then steps toward you pulling up their pants, let me know if you felt like you were in danger.

 

Ok, but the average person hasn't.

 

Yeah he was in danger before he got pushed to the ground. Once on the ground I saw no danger, just a pissed off idiot with a gun.

 

If only he had been watching himself be attacked on the store camera he'd have known he'd be fine.

If you watch the video again, you'll see him walk towards him on the ground.

The only thing that prevented either a serious beating or his death was the gun.

 

More people need to start eating venison.
It is the only thing deer are good for, unless you own a body shop.

 

IMO, lawyers are far more unethical and incompetent than police officers, and there are limits to any civil immunity, but suing a police officer individually for a tort would be a waste of time. Cops seldom have deep pockets.

 

Was an angry woman holding the gun?