Toggle sidebar

Florida woman shoots and kills a man in Wal Mart parking lot. Self defense or not?

In a perfect world the man sees the gun in her hand and common sense kicks in and he retreats and nothing more happens.

But......sometimes our military veterans suffer from PTSD and/or other mental disorders.

I don't know if that was what was happening here or not.

I totally get the argument of self-defense/stand your ground.

But it sure didn't seem like her action was necessary to save her life.
 
Bamabuzzard said:
Video Link

Here's the video of her getting out of the car with the gun in her hand and the man is not around. She walks over to the vehicle next to her and starts talking then the video cuts directly to the guy being back in the picture. For some reason there's not a continuous video of when she got out of the car, went over to the vehicle next to her and started talking to them, and then the man walking back into the situation.
Click to expand...
What happened before that? Seems he had already done something. Got her gun for protection. Asked about him to avoid him.
 
Bazza said:
In a perfect world the man sees the gun in her hand and common sense kicks in and he retreats and nothing more happens.

But......sometimes our military veterans suffer from PTSD and/or other mental disorders.

I don't know if that was what was happening here or not.

I totally get the argument of self-defense/stand your ground.

But it sure didn't seem like her action was necessary to save her life.
Click to expand...
The biggest hurdle for a prosecution will be the deceased continuing to walk towards her when she's told him to stop. By Florida law, if the person keeps coming at you aftert youve told them to stop with a gun pointed at them, I dont think she had to wait for him to make physical contact with her before defending herself. But, this will come down to who has the best lawyers.
 
  • Thank You
  • Like
Reactions: spidermayin and Tidewater
Bazza said:
In a perfect world the man sees the gun in her hand and common sense kicks in and he retreats and nothing more happens.

But......sometimes our military veterans suffer from PTSD and/or other mental disorders.

I don't know if that was what was happening here or not.

I totally get the argument of self-defense/stand your ground.

But it sure didn't seem like her action was necessary to save her life.
Click to expand...
In Fla does it have to be life based or physical safety only?
 
Bamaro said:
In Fla does it have to be life based or physical safety only?
Click to expand...

776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.—
(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.
(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
 
  • Thank You
Reactions: Bamaro
Huckleberry said:

776.012 Use or threatened use of force in defense of person.—
(1) A person is justified in using or threatening to use force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. A person who uses or threatens to use force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat before using or threatening to use such force.
(2) A person is justified in using or threatening to use deadly force if he or she reasonably believes that using or threatening to use such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony. A person who uses or threatens to use deadly force in accordance with this subsection does not have a duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground if the person using or threatening to use the deadly force is not engaged in a criminal activity and is in a place where he or she has a right to be.
Click to expand...
"to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself " so it appears she can use this successfully as a defense.
 
In Alabama, in a 2013 Supreme Court case, a guy had been convicted of "brandishing," and had appealed all the way to the top court. Even the CCA had affirmed his conviction. He was a landlord with a tenant he had evicted and heard was continuing to trespass. There was an altercation. He went to his truck and retrieved his shotgun. The tenant had him charged with brandishing. The court reversed all the lower courts, because he never lifted the gun (conflicting testimony). Now, I haven't looked to see how much of that court remains, but the precedent is there and it affects cases like the one under discussion, if you can see the parallels...
 
crimsonaudio said:
Yep. Florida is pretty solidly in the stand your ground category, hence my feeling that I doubt she will be charged for the shooting.

Nor should she, imo.
Click to expand...
I have to agree. There are numerous cases on record (and more which aren't) of women, in particular, having firearms taken away and used on them, because, although they had a gun, they thought the scare tactic would work and were not able to pull the trigger, in the end...
 
  • Like
Reactions: PaulD and crimsonaudio
Knowing exactly nothing about various state law precedents, I stand with CA and Huckleberry.

The woman is probably guilty of brandishing. She’s not guilty of murder. The self-defense argument is entirely consistent with the facts as I know them to have been made public.

The dead guy was guilty of threatening. But now that he’s dead, that’s pretty much moot.

If new evidence comes out, it could change the facts as we currently know them.
 
spidermayin said:
If neither of them had a gun, I would argue that neither of them would have died. Guns cause way more problems than they prevent. What a pointless way to die. Both parties were in the wrong here, but it was self defense.
Click to expand...
Plenty of unarmed women have died at the hands of unarmed men. In this case, had the man not let his emotions get out of control, none of this would have happened.

The gun wasn’t the problem, it was the solution to the problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CrimsonJazz, T Bone and Con
crimsonaudio said:
Plenty of unarmed women have died at the hands of unarmed men. In this case, had the man not let his emotions get out of control, none of this would have happened.

The gun wasn’t the problem, it was the solution to the problem.
Click to expand...
There were quite likely better options than shooting the threatening man. Driving away or sitting in your locked car and waiting on the police are more sensible behaviors. Her actions and the accessibility of the gun contributed to the worst possible solution.

Living in Florida, I would never get into an argument like this with a stranger, male or female. Our gun policies increase the possibility of a firearm being a first rather than last resort.
 
  • Like
  • Thank You
Reactions: tusks_n_raider, 92tide, selmaborntidefan and 2 others
My take - based on what I know so far - is that it's an insanely stupid idea to approach someone who is pointing a gun at you regardless.

The media, of course, did not run the headline they do if he'd been a white cop with the gun.
Which has come to be expected.


Headline here:
ANGRY BLACK WOMAN SHOOTS UNARMED WHITE MAN OVER PARKING SPOT

Yes, I made it intentionally misleading - just like they do.

For the record, I don't think the Metcalf-Anthony case has anything at all to do with this nor for that matter do many other cases. Ironically, the one that might have the most salience or relevance is Trayvon Martin and George Zimmerman, except in this case Trayvon is the white guy.

What saddens me is that while our society is by no means color blind or even close yet (and likely never will be), it is more often the MEDIA that twists many of these stories into racial ones that are not. We probably wouldn't even have heard about this story if the black woman was a white man. (We MIGHT have if she was a white woman).

I always go with what my Dad said:
"It isn't who's right, it's who left."
 
  • Thank You
Reactions: Con
spidermayin said:
If neither of them had a gun, I would argue that neither of them would have died. Guns cause way more problems than they prevent. What a pointless way to die. Both parties were in the wrong here, but it was self defense.
Click to expand...

I won't go that far.

You can kill someone with a car and road rage IS a thing.

I just don't think a parking spot is worth dying over or even fighting over.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tusks_n_raider and crimsonaudio
Huckleberry said:
There were quite likely better options than shooting the threatening man. Driving away or sitting in your locked car and waiting on the police are more sensible behaviors. Her actions and the accessibility of the gun contributed to the worst possible solution.
Click to expand...
I’ve no idea what options were available to her, but I 100% support her right to defend herself against an aggressive man who would almost certainly have easily overpowered her.

Huckleberry said:
Living in Florida, I would never get into an argument like this with a stranger, male or female. Our gun policies increase the possibility of a firearm being a first rather than last resort.
Click to expand...
Hence the phrase “an armed society is a polite society.”
 
Huckleberry said:
There were quite likely better options than shooting the threatening man. Driving away or sitting in your locked car and waiting on the police are more sensible behaviors. Her actions and the accessibility of the gun contributed to the worst possible solution.

Living in Florida, I would never get into an argument like this with a stranger, male or female. Our gun policies increase the possibility of a firearm being a first rather than last resort.
Click to expand...
Both showed their level of maturity and self control are on a middle school level. These two weren't going to choose "better options" if they were hit in the face with them. A parking space, this was over a parking space.
 
  • Like
  • Emphasis!
Reactions: selmaborntidefan, tusks_n_raider, 92tide and 3 others
spidermayin said:
If neither of them had a gun, I would argue that neither of them would have died. Guns cause way more problems than they prevent. What a pointless way to die. Both parties were in the wrong here, but it was self defense.
Click to expand...
Thats hard to say in this day and age of public social rage. People commonly get beaten to near death at youth sporting events with no guns in sight. People using their vehicle as weapons to plow over someone for pulling out in front of them is not a rarity. People not only get triggered faster in today's society, they go to any length to show their displeasure. When someone snaps, anything becomes a weapon.
 
  • Like
  • Sad
Reactions: PaulD and Con
crimsonaudio said:
I’ve no idea what options were available to her, but I 100% support her right to defend herself against an aggressive man who would almost certainly have easily overpowered her.
Click to expand...
As I posted earlier, I agree with this, even if she stupidly put herself in that situation.
crimsonaudio said:
Hence the phrase “an armed society is a polite society.”
Click to expand...
Have you read the book that is the source of that quote?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New Posts

Advertisement

Trending content

Advertisement

Latest threads

Top Bottom
Back