It's called, "Reasonable force" in the UK. Many Americans believe the Brits can't and are not allowed to defend themselves. But we can, it's just that it has to be reasonable to the situation; as per the examples you give. We've all done stupid things in our lives, more so than others. I know a guy who's built up a million pound business, he used to be a burglar in his teens. Kids just shouldn't be wrote off or shot on the spot. People need to think, what if it was my kid who did something stupid and was running away, only to get shot 4 times in the back and killed? Not every kid will grow up and build a million dollar company, but if you have to stand your ground, just make your actions reasonable.
Equally, there are no laws to say stupidity is a crime, otherwise, we've all broken the law at some point in our time, some more than others !!
Per the Fla case in the news 1. Don't illegally park in a Handicap spot , I got a tag for the wife and it grinds my gears to see this. 2. Don't go laying your hands on Old men. As Dad told me they will hurt or kill you. 3. In discussions about parking spots , stay calm and keep your hands to yourself.
The shooter was hardly an old man, he was just 48. IMHO, he was just trying to cause trouble because he had the gun on his hip. He makes CCW permit holders look bad, and I'll be happy if he is convicted of manslaughter.
I am 52 and walk with the assistance of a Cane. If that guy had shoved me to the ground he would have gotten the same thing. The was a disparity of force He was 48 and other guy was 20 years younger,and stronger. That is disparity of Force.
This guy has a police record of picking fights. I'm also sure you wouldn't be yelling at a lady in a car with kids to the point that her boyfriend thinks she's in danger. People with carry permits have an obligation to not try to pick fights. Also, when somebody is backing away, they are no longer a threat. The shooter was right to pull out his gun, wrong to shoot.
If someone has demonstrated the willingness to engage in unprovoked violence against another, their remaining in the area, in the immediate presence of the victim, constitutes a continued and credible threat.
Give it up. The threat was neutralized when the firearm was presented. The question is why are a small few continuing to try and make this argument that the shooter was within his rights to pull the trigger. He was not.
On what basis will a disagreement be had, especially when the sheriff who refused to arrest Drejka will likely be called as an expert witness for the defense?
A threat paused is not a threat neutralized. The last time it was checked, there had yet to be a trial, meaning Drejka remains innocent until such time. And as he is innocent of any wrongdoing until a verdict says otherwise, his actions will continue to be defended.
Show where it has been held, or otherwise codified into law, that someone who has already been subjected to deadly force, not even ten seconds previously, is legally barred from returning deadly force against the aggressor who is still in the immediate area, and still quite able to reenage in the use of deadly force if they so choose.
These days it seem the protocol is to declare innocence or guilt, particularly in the media and then seek the evidence to prove it.
Yelling and screaming at a man's significant other with their children present is a provocation. The shooter was out of line for picking a verbal fight with the woman. The boyfriend was wrong to push the shooter, but the shooter had no right to use lethal force, IMHO. The boyfriend was backing off when shot. Had the boyfriend been a threat the guy on the ground would have been kicked and beaten before he could have drawn the gun.
Sheriff did that because he is anti-gun, and wanted to show that "stand your ground" was wrong, and wanted a good example in court to press his point. The Sheriff is anti-concealed carry and has said that his men have orders to shoot concealed carriers if they happen to be at a bank robbery. https://www.nraila.org/articles/201...altieri-threatens-to-shoot-concealed-carriers
I couldn't find an original source on that article, so I doubt its veracity. It's the kind of propaganda the politicized, my cold dead hands, wing of the NRA likes to push.
Until such time it is demonstrated that there is a legal doctrine in the united states, holding that someone who has been subjected to assault with deadly force is legally obligated to actually allow their assailant to leave the area and not engage them, the position will be maintained.
