And the burden of proof falls on the prosecution to prove otherwise. This is what happens when Republitards go full Republitard.
FL's Stand Your Ground Law Strikes Again
- Thread starter jthomas666
- Start date
TIDE-HSV, would shooting someone that is backing up be equivalent to shooting someone in the back? Legally? I would define both as "fleeing," but that is just an opinion. Is it defined in a legal sense?
If this was a white guy shooting a black guy, get ready for this to go crazy for the next couple weeks.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What they're practicing has nothing to do with what's in the statute about "reasonably." What's actually happening on the ground in Florida is totally off the wall, like the rest of the state. One guy got off shooting another man in the back of the head...
I think I see now. I was thinking the wording on immediate danger of death or great physical harm was referencing another law and not the Stand Your Ground.
I thought this applied pretty much everywhere if someone does not have the opportunity to flee. The shooter in this case didn't have the opportunity to flee but also was no longer in danger once he pulled his pistol. I think I'm putting my own definition in place based on the name Stand Your Ground...
Last edited:
Well, under common law, you were under an affirmative duty to retreat rather than to engage, until you could retreat no further. It's more complex than that, but that will do for understanding the principles. If you were in your home, you were deemed to have retreated as far as you could and were free to defend yourself. The original idea of the SYG laws was to place one in the same position out in public as if he/she were in the home - no duty to retreat. So far, so good. However, in FL, the courts seem to have subtracted the "reasonably" from the wording of the statute. I would say that prosecutors don't operate in a vacuum and the police chief is not the last word in whether this shooter gets charged...
Once he had pulled the gun and the other guy had backed off, he most certainly DID have the opportunity to flee.
you can't shoot people that don't pose an imminent threat to you. you just can't.
Yeah, kinda, but my point was he was assaulted before he realized that he was being threatened.
Last edited:
i just have to wonder what the reactions to this story would be if it was a black guy yelling at a white woman about being in the handicapped place and her white husband/father was shot after defending his girlfriend/wife
One would no doubt be "You can't yell at a man's wife outside their car. You just can't."
My stance has softened slightly. When I initially watched the video it felt like 3-5 seconds before the man pulled the trigger after aiming the gun. When going frame by frame I realized it was around 2 seconds from the time the gun left the holster until the victim reacted to being hit. That isn't a ton of time to make a decision and completely register that the other man is backing away although he still should have felt the immediate threat was gone and taken the side of caution.
I still think he should be charged, although I would go with manslaughter. Although if it can be proved that he's been itching for a confrontation (as some reports would indicate) and a chance to whip out his pistol then I would say second-degree murder.
*Like this?
**Wasn't it indicated the store had a history of problems with this guy? So maybe if someone kept digging a bit this M.O. could be established.
Well,sure, you know, next thing they'll expecting to be able to vote or something...
Based on the story of the assault on the 91 year old Mexican grandfather, once people ascertained the race of the people involved they would lose interest in the story quickly.
Just like I mentioned in one of my earlier posts after TIDE-HSV's explanation. This seems to be heading farther out of context as it it goes along...
Latest threads
-
-
Question: Chris Youngblood did he commit over the weekend?
- Started by mlingerfelt31
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
-